How can humanity fly to Mars if it hasn't really reached the Moon yet?
Alexander Zheleznyakov. Photo: Svetlana Stankevich.
The space of the XXI century needs pragmatic romantics, says Academician of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics. K. E. Tsiolkovsky, historian and writer Alexander Zheleznyakov. We spoke about travels to distant stars and problems that prevent us from getting off the ground within the walls of his alma mater - the famous St. Petersburg Polytechnic.
Orbit the first
Is it possible to define a leading country in the space industry today?
- There is no clear leader. There are three "winners", each one is stronger than the other in something, and in some way inferior. Russia is currently the undisputed, unconditional leader in manned space exploration. Right now, when we are talking with you, and it is important to focus on this, we are the only country that can ensure the regular delivery of people to near-earth orbit. In a year, the situation may change dramatically. The United States is a leader in navigation, Earth remote sensing, and meteorology. China, in turn, has launched several very interesting scientific satellites in the past couple of years that are exploring new space technologies and the Universe.
To what extent is the current role of Russia in the "space division of labor" painful for the Americans? Here we can dictate our terms?
Promotional video:
“Today, on a commercial basis, we bring Americans into orbit in our ships. Our engines are powered by two American launch vehicles - Atlas-5 and Antares-230. But, if the Americans did not receive these engines, this does not mean that they would not fly into space! After all, they flew without us during the Cold War, so why not continue? For example, here is the "Delta-IV Heavy" - one of the most powerful carriers, well, indeed, the most expensive, flies on American engines, like the "Falcon-9".
Delta-IV Heavy.
That is, the Americans are driven solely by convenience and profit, and not by the lack of their own technologies?
- Sure! And here is the key point. When the contract was signed, and that was 20 years ago, they figured out that it would be more profitable to buy our proven reliable engines than to get involved in the multi-billion dollar development of their own. And they saved time in order to transfer this direction of space activity to private owners. And now the development of the engine, which will replace the Russian one, is being carried out by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin company.
And in the meantime, acting in the role of "space cabs", we load our ships with American astronauts. And we devote very little time to our own manned program. The development of a new ship is proceeding neither shaky nor shaky. At best, our "Federation", on the creation of which the Rocket and Space Corporation "Energia" is working, will begin flights only in 2024.
At the same time, the share of Russia in commercial launches, alas, is not growing, but decreasing. According to statistics, in 2013 we delivered every second cargo into space, and in 2016 - already twice as little
- This is sad. After all, commercial orders are not only jobs in order to serially drive launch vehicles. This is the movement of science, which is forced to improve and modernize the carriers. And many other things that provide, albeit slowly, the development of the industry. The funds we received allowed us to make some pioneering developments. After all, the budget allocated to Roskosmos is not enough for all space projects. And the corporation is simply forced to make money on the side.
How realistic is it to return the lost positions? Is the production of the Angara launch vehicle capable of turning the tide?
- By and large, everything that is being done now is being done in the direction of "space transport". You mentioned the Angara. After all, it was created to replace the old "Proton" launch vehicle and continue to do the same thing - a taxi. Only with the "Angara" not all is well. It was developed over 20 years ago, but it still does not fly. When work began, the Angara was a decent rocket. But already 5 years ago I would say that her technology is outdated. Specialists can see this with the naked eye. But hundreds of billions of rubles have been spent. And now it seems illogical for Roscosmos to throw them away.
"Angara".
Musk against Roscosmos
Then, perhaps, the reason for our failures is in the very organization of the space industry? A huge structure with high inertia, simply unable to effectively cope with the challenges of the new time and see in its ranks the "local" Elon Musk?
- I think if we had our own Musk, we would know about him. But in order to become one, first of all, you need to be an enthusiast in your field. Of course, you can kick him as you like, call him self-taught. But! The main thing that he did was instill a dream in people. Musk is a pragmatist and a romantic at the same time. Here is a combination of such qualities - the most necessary for astronautics. Having the money and the courage to invest it in highly adventurous projects.
Elon Musk has set himself the goal of - to reduce the cost of space flights by ten times.
But then all his activities can rather be called a successful "advertising campaign to instill a dream." That is, almost a gamble. And he himself is a successful marketer, not a specialist in the field of space technologies
- Let's see. First, he has not only conversations, but also an obvious result. This is not how our "Roscosmos" likes to say: "We have a lunar program, we will fly to Mars, we are creating scientific satellites." We talked and parted. No real start-up, no real achievements. And Musk does what he promised. He promised to start regular launches of his commercial Falcon-9 - and he is flying. Twice a month. Now it is already a stable intensity. Did he promise that he would plant the first steps? And then we watched the launch of this heavy Falcon and saw how effectively two stages landed simultaneously. It's just an aesthetic pleasure! Boggles the mind!
And apart from aesthetics and surprise, is there a technical novelty in Musk's achievements? From skeptics you can hear, they say, we would do that too, but there is no point in it
- So do it! Indeed, this is what they say both at the Space Research Institute and at the Central Scientific Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering (the head research institute of the state corporation "Roscosmos" - Ed.). But it turns out strange. Why does everyone else need it, but we don't?
Musk has a technical novelty already at least in the landing of the first stage. Nobody had done this before. The best first-stage rescue option, which was previously assumed, is a parachute descent. We thought about this when we were building the Buran rocket and space system in the 80s. But then the hands did not reach, and now it became uninteresting, because Elon Musk had already done it.
Next: Musk promised a heavy rocket flight. And it took place. It took him 7 years and only about half a billion dollars. And this, you see, is not 20 years of "Angara" and more than a hundred billion rubles.
But "evil tongues" say that NASA's bottomless wallet was opened for Musk …
- About the non-publicized budget of NASA - this is, sorry, from the field of mythology, born of our skeptics, who are looking for ways to at least somehow justify their helplessness. Tell me, why does NASA raise a competitor by funding its development? Indeed, in fact, today Musk literally snatches work from the space agency. If we theoretically assume that someone financed Musk, then it would be more profitable to do not NASA, but the Pentagon, which would have received another reliable supplier of launch services - Elon Musk. That is, not one, but two carriers that can deliver cargo to orbit. And this is necessary for any country. And us too! In order to ensure the fulfillment of tasks to ensure its own national security in the event of any difficulties.
And one more thing about this launch, which is not often talked about: Musk did not only send his car towards deep space. He also demonstrated to the US Department of Defense the technology for delivering cargo to geostationary orbit, that is, at a distance of 36,000 kilometers from Earth.
What kind of cargo delivery might the Pentagon be interested in?
- Telecommunication systems, intelligence systems. And in the long term, if it comes to the ideas of Trump, who recently let slip about his intention to create space forces, then combat platforms. 21 tons is already a decent platform that can be placed on a geostationary and cause a lot of trouble.
The Pentagon, of course, does not yet know itself whether it needs such a carrier or not. But having it is already good.
In that case, this is not Musk's thrown money?
- Not thrown out. Because he sees the Falcon Heavy as an intermediate option for creating an even more powerful rocket - the Big Falcon Rocket. This rocket will launch 150 tons into low-earth orbit. What is 150 tons for? These are flights to the moon, which in the next decade will be extremely popular. And in 3-4 launches you can assemble a large interplanetary ship and send it to Mars.
And then, not having our own developments, we will stand in line with the Americans, when will we start working on our Lunar program?
- You have almost quoted Igor Komarov (head of the Federal Space Agency. - Ed.). While discussing the issue of the lunar station, where the United States had invited Russia to participate, he said that for the delivery of our modules we intend to order several launches of the American ESL missile.
But I must say that all these developments by the Americans could not be ignored by Roscosmos, and it tried to react. After Musk launched a heavy rocket, a presidential decree was signed on the beginning of the development of a super-heavy launch vehicle. A few years ago, it was assumed that it would be built on the basis of the Angara. Now there has been a radical change in direction. Now RSC Energia and RSC Progress in Samara will be engaged in development; they will create a rocket based on Soyuz-5. Only this carrier with a carrying capacity of the same as that of the Falcon Heavy, we will begin to test only after 10 years. In 2028.
Draft design of the Soyuz-5 launch vehicle.
To Mars in 30 days
Can this be called a hopeless lag?
- Not. There is always an opportunity to jump forward. And we have it. It is necessary to develop a nuclear interorbital tug. The Research Center named after V. I. M. V. Keldysh. And, if we get a megawatt class tug, we will very effectively compete with our competitors.
With the help of this nuclear tug we will be able to develop much higher speeds. Indeed, now, when we launch automatic stations, and in the future we are preparing to launch spaceships on modern rockets, the speed with which the rocket will fly to Mars, too, will be 13-14 km per second. That is, it will take almost 7 months to reach it. Now imagine the mass of a ship embarking on such a long expedition. After all, the astronauts need to be fed, they need to breathe. That is, the reserves that you will have to take with you amount to tens, and maybe even hundreds of tons. And with a new nuclear tug, it will be possible to reach the vicinity of the planet within 30 days. And, accordingly, much less reserves are required. In addition, even with the current carriers at our disposal, we can assemble the ship,dock it to a nuclear tug and send it to Mars.
How close are we to the goal in the production of the tug?
- When work began in 2010, 2018 was designated as the start date for flight tests. And no one has corrected it yet. But if you look at our other large-scale projects that have been recently implemented in Russia, then we can say with confidence that we will not start testing this year. Take the same long-suffering Science block for the ISS. It was supposed to be launched in 2007, now the launch date is 2019. Or the scientific observatory "Spectrum-RG". 2007 was also listed there. And it still does not start. What can I say here? Indeed, space technology is too complex and unpredictable. Besides, space is a very expensive thing. Therefore, it is better to check 100 times than to blindly follow the deadlines. A delay of a year and a half for astronautics is normal and justified. But 10 years can no longer be justified!
Multipurpose laboratory module "Science".
Observatory "Spektr-RG".
Nevertheless, we have a chance to go to Mars?
- And when you say “here,” do you mean “country” or “humanity”? I am more impressed by "humanity". It will definitely fly, and we, as a country, too. Only this will not happen tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. In 20 years, at least the first expedition will fly towards Mars. No disembarkation. Best case scenario. In reality, this does not look like what the officials promise. Yes, we still haven't really made it to the moon.
Will we be there before?
- Yes, in 10 years. So there will be a reason to meet in 2028.
Interviewed by Nadezhda Madzalevskaya
It is interesting
Proxima Centauri b (also known as Proxima b) was discovered in 2016. The prospective landscape doesn't look very friendly. Illustration: European Southern Observatory.
New life on Proxima b
The moon and Mars are the best places to create temporary colonies of earthlings, cosmologist Stephen Hawking believed. “The human race has existed as a separate species for about two million years. Civilization arose about 10 thousand years ago, and the rate of development of the people wants to live for another million years, they need to boldly go where no one has been before … There are simply no other options. According to Hawking, our planet will inevitably die either from an asteroid impact, or from climate change, or from overpopulation. The scientist saw a new permanent residence of people in the Alpha Centauri star system, on the planet Proxima b.
Stephen Hawking (1942–2018).
About astronautics
Vadim Korablev - Professor, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, St. Petersburg Polytechnic University:
- Cosmonautics is valuable not only for mankind's dreams of expanding its living space to the level of the entire Universe. Today it is a field that accumulates a huge number of breakthrough scientific directions. These are energy, technologies for creating new materials, navigation, communication systems, medicine. It is important that such programs contribute to the progress of the economy and science in general.
Vadim Korablev.