Soyuz Mission to the Moon Surfaces — Again
Space Adventures vehicle for circumlunar flights. (Credit: Space Adventures)
Like the elusive Loch Ness Monster, a plan to send a cosmonaut and two tourists looping around the moon in a modified Soyuz transport has once again surfaced in the Russian media.
Sputnik News reports that RSC Energia General Director Vladimir Solntsev told Izvestia that officials have a preliminary design for the upgraded Soyuz and are considering eight potential applicants willing to pay $150 million apiece to fill the two open seats, including a Japanese family.
The plan, which is a partnership of RSC Energia and Space Adventures, has been around for many years. There’s discussion about it and media stories and everything seems to be moving forward, and then like Nessie it disappears for years at a time.
They’ve had a preliminary design for quite a while now. The image above showing the modified Soyuz dates back to 2011. I also recall that Space Adventures officials have said they had already sold at least one of the two tickets.
A couple of years ago, Space Adventures CEO recorded a video in which he said he hoped to fly the mission in time for the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire that killed Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee. That anniversary will occur on Jan. 27, 2017.
The eight people interested in the flight have been told that it could take place by 2020.
56 responses to “Soyuz Mission to the Moon Surfaces — Again”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
While the technical aspects of the plan are totally feasible (Soyuz was designed to go to the moon and the Blok D was part of that plan) – this suffers from the worse aspects of both New Space and Russian space propaganda. Lots of plans, pictures and announcements, but the money just isn’t there and the test schedule to prove out the hardware just never seems to be there.
Yes, a couple of Zond/Soyuz even went around the Moon in the 1970’s. But there is no money to make it happen.
While there are surely commonalities between the 1970s Zond/Soyuz and today’s Soyuz, there are huge differences too. The electronics aren’t the same. Only the Russians know if they are “radiation hardened” for a lunar trip. LEO operations experience far less radiation than beyond LEO operations.
Even if they manage to get past these obstacles, I’d frankly wonder about the risks involved. Soyuz is obviously a well proven architecture, but the present model has never been beyond LEO; the EDS obviously has yet to be proven in that role; and ROSCOSMOS quality control of late has not been all that it could be.
the QA is what I would worry about, ESP. on the new equipment.
But, the purpose of doing it is to MAKE money! The passengers would pay for it. That makes it one of very few Russian space fantasies which is really realistic.
It is. Assuming the Russians don’t screw it up, which… they have a penchant to do.
The plan was to send cosmonauts around the moon to test the systems first before sending a tourist flight. I don’t know if that’s still part of the plan. Wonder if they could send an automated mission. Not sure how that would save. I think it would be crazy to send tourists without a test flight first. However you do that it increases your costs a lot.
I have a vague memory that ever time this thing surfaces on Loch Nesski someone from Roscosmos knocks it down and says nah we’re not doing that. Of course Roscosmos is under new management and cash strapped so if someone can make a case the flights will bring in money, then maybe they will pursue it.
To piggy back on the cash thing – starting in a year or two, Energia will have a production line that can produce 2x the Soyuz capsules and Soyuz launchers than are needed for ISS support – as well as no outside monies to pay for it. You gotta pay for all that stuff somehow!
As for doing it without a test flight, then what would I be paying $150 million for?!? Yes, crazier thing have happened, and all the individual pieces work, but that’s the EASY part. It’s the systems engineering – what happens with the interfaces and interactions that is the HARD part. Doug, I know you know this, but it would still be nuts.
Here’s something to think about: would they allow it with Soyuz, but instead put it on hold as a Federatsia-only mission? Might Energia switch the capsule from Soyuz and declare that only Federatsia could handle it? It would be a standard “protect the funding for the next program” affair. After all, why spend all the money on the new design if the other can do lunar missions just fine?
Soyuz has no capacity to land on the Moon. Where as Federastia has been displayed landed on the Moon, even if its dubious… Besides, they are keeping up with the Americans. Which is quite motivational to them.
But the Soyuz production lines and toolings have long been paid for, so would be (relatively) cheap and the profit margins much higher than for any other vehicle. And its systems are proven and highly reliable and a Moon flyby isn’t nearly as technically challenging or hi-risk as a landing.
It makes sense to me and is a positive secondary effect of CC.
Jeff, is Soyuz still rad-rated for operations outside the Van Allen rad belts? There is a difference, and systems that operate outside them have to be more hardened. I wonder if the Russians are still actually engineering, testing, and building for this option?
Original Soyuz was designed for lunar missions. Current Soyuz electronics are another question entirely.
There are two problems. The first problem is Roscosmos unofficially controls RSC Energia since 2014 summer and Roscoscos managers don’t support this project. And RSC Energia has no good enough income to invest in this project anyway.
But Space Adventures does, or can, via the West’s investor markets. If they can get a firm commitment for X number of Soyuz launches, and from Y customers/flight participants, for Z profit margin, why…. that about as firm a business case as you get in space tourism.
Western investors can’t (or don’t want or both) invest to Russian compaines because of sanctions. And – as i said – problem No 1 is still actual: Roscosmos don’t want this project. Why? I don’t know, I can’t explain their logics.
They aren’t investing in a Russian company. They aren’t even investing in buying Russian hardware. They are investing in a US one that has a Russian vendor providing a service. There is a difference.
Yes, i see what you mean. Looks like it’s possible. But I still think Roscosmos would block this development work in RSC Energia.
Not necessarily. Again, in America, we are doing weird stuff WRT sanctions.
They will just need to write a few campaign contribution checks.
I actually believe it’s possible. Energia is subcontractor of Boeing in some projects (IDA for example).
A few more years and the Soyuz joyride project may stay around longer than XCOR Lynx before it was finally put out of its misery.
Is there much more internal habitable volume than the current Soyuz version? That one doesn’t look like a place I’d like to have to spend a week in.
But if you pay $150,000,000 for it, your psychology will make up some justification in your mind. To hide what you subconsciously understand that you could’ve achieved by instead donating that money to the Clinton Foundation. But it’s worth it, since you’ll see a dim image of the Moon through a glass which is almost as large as a tablet pad.
Seriously, weightlessness makes room much more useful. It’s not like in an airliner where you have to excuse yourself to your seated neighbor for having to go to the toilette (which in itself is a problem to use, though). You float passed each other like birds playing in the sky. Or like fish in the ocean.
Actually, what it is about is to be able to point at the Moon and truthfully say:
“- I have been there!”
Space tourists are brave pioneers in human exploration of space. Redefining lunatic to mean being a hero.
And to have sex in weightlessness. The orbital module will certainly be used for that purpose by the two tourists while the accompanying cosmonaut stays in the descent module. Unless they are really kinky.
It’s $120,000,000 now. Special Lunar summer sale.
But landing on Earth costs extra. Price to be negotiated on the fly.
Food is not included and you need to pay one extra million for each kg in a cabin bag.
But – no jokes – it’s 120 million now. Fourth paragraph here: http://izvestia.ru/news/627864
Even a normal Soyuz has more free space for each passenger then, for example, SpaceX Dragon (10,5 cubic m for 3 passengers vs ~10 cubic m for 5). And they propose an additional huge (large then at the picture above) habitat module for lunar flyby missions.
I am pretty sure that cylindrical object is not a “habitat module” but TLI stage to get the Soyuz stack out of LEO.
The left cylindrical object is a DM tug, but the white spherical object is a second habitat module. In fact, it’s old picture, now it’s cylindrical too.
Oh, I see what you mean. However getting new hardware built is probably asking too much. Besides, that would ruin the whole nostalgic “roughing it in space” feel.
Habitat modules like this are quite simple. They also can reuse old MIM design (Pirs, Poisk ISS modules).
true, I wonder if they ever considered making the lunar module just a Siamesed hab and propellant tank and using the Soyuz main engine for the trans lunar burns? They would need to beef up the motor(s? long long burn), but it would save a lot of mass.
Not necessarily. Russia has had QA issues, esp on new items.
Not on Soyuz. The unmanned side is a different line, different people.
yes, but adding the NEW stuff would be a different line with different people. And it would be new.
Not really. Same Soyuz man-rated dept. and the whole Roscosmos MSF bureau. It would just be a new version of proven architecture and systems.
But they can’t launch all of that with a Soyuz launcher. What would carry all of that around the Moon?
Proton-M launches DM upper stage and new habitat module with mounted docking system. Soyuz-FG or Soyuz-2 launches modified Soyuz spacecraft. One orbital docking operation is required, but it’s not a problem now.
Could this be used to send Soyuz to the Deep Space Hab now being discussed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
If so, a progress resupply ship could be used BEO
Next!
sorry, but no way.
They would make me nervous with running out of money and their recent bouts of QA issues.
I really want to see BA get a move on and be ready in 2018 to add a full BA-330 as a hab. After 1-2 years, that will be perfect for adding a tug, a dragon, and then going to the moon.
Me too. Any thoughts regarding a suitable tug and manufacturer?
Personally, I’m interested in what ula is up to. ACES would take their second stage and convert it to a tug once it has flown up there.
From where I sit, that sounds like a better use of a second stage, rather than coming back with it. Just put lids/ids on the end for hooking up to either a tanker or a cargo.
Sounds good…but this is gonna take a while. From Defense News:
“Bruno expects the launch of ULA’s first iteration of the Vulcan, which uses the Centaur upper stage, to occur in 2019 at the earliest. The second iteration, the Vulcan Aces, will be available three to four years later, in about 2024, he said.”
I expect that schedule to slip…and ISS may be feeding the fish by that time.
sheesh.
ULA has LOADS of money behind them, and they just piss it away.
Shareholder value man…
They postponed it to 2020. And i think the first BA-330 will be launched to ISS as a new module, not as a start of a new space station.
right. They are looking at putting a BA-330 on the ISS to replace BEAM. But, it will likely be a stripped bare one. Instead, they should try to push up their schedule and make that a habitat. If BA-330 can support 6 ppl , while the ISS supports 7, then it should be possible to turn the bA-330 into sleeping quarters, exercise area, hygene ideally with a shower, kitchen, etc for the western crew. Note that once you make the BA-330 become a habitat, then the ISS can be left solely as a lab/engineering area. In addition, by running shifts, you can have 4 ppl in the labs, and 2 in the russian side and 6 in the BA-330.
Note that the BA-330 does NOT have to start as a full Habitat, but should have its own solar/electricity, main life support, ideally a toilet, sleeping quarters that are noise isolated from the rest of the BA-330/ISS. Then over time, add kitchen, shower, exercise, perhaps rec area, etc.
Then by 2020, they can spin it off, OR, they can use all that for multiple BA-330s to go on SS alpha, and perhaps for lunar circular.
X-BASE https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Yeah, but the question becomes, what will it be used for? If more lab space, then it is almost a waste. OTOH, if converted into habitat and then enhanced over a year or so, that would make it worth while.
From NASA…doesn’t really tell us much…so I’ve included a lovely mockup of B-330. (When I click the pic 3 times I can get a nice closeup.)
“Bigelow Aerospace LLC of North Las Vegas, Nevada will develop and test a prototype of XBASE (Expandable Bigelow Advanced Station Enhancement), a 330 cubic meter expandable habitat and test platform for deep space hardware. The testing conducted on this platform will advance approaches for deep space missions and serve as a basis for commercialization in low-Earth orbit. XBASE is based on the B-330 expandable spacecraft for the mission-specific purpose of attaching to the International Space Station as a visiting vehicle. XBASE leverages the lessons learned from the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module (BEAM).” https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
However, it is worth more to Bigelow to have their module perceived as a lab or lab/hab combo, not just space-balloon where people sleep. Their aim is to attract investors/customers for private space-stations, and they want those to be working research stations, not just tourist bedrooms.
Uh, labs are trivial to put together. The habitat is not.
A standalone habitat is difficult. But an empty chamber that passively feeds off the main station’s ECLSS is not. Being perceived as a working lab is the key.
Dream on. That would be a complete redesign and reconfiguration of the ISS and no one has the money for that. Probably not even technically possible because of…. a myriad of reasons. The way power and data are routed, the way the systems are installed, even station CoG…