The carrying capacity of a promising space nuclear tug has become known

December 15 2020 17

The Russian promising transport and energy module Nuclon will be able to deliver 10 tons of cargo to the Moon over a period of 200 Earth days. Reported by RIA News, with reference to documents published on the public procurement website.

Let us remind you that last week a contract was signed between Roscosmos and KB Arsenal for the development of a preliminary design for a nuclear space tug. The contractor undertakes to complete all work by July 28, 2024. The project worth 4,2 billion rubles has received the Nuclon-AP code.

The aforementioned transport and energy module is being created to transport cargo between low-earth and lunar orbits. The main advantage of the device is its nuclear power plant, which will significantly reduce shipping costs.

It should be noted that according to the words of the corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics. Tsiolkovsky Andrey Ionin, such a long flight time (200 days) will not be a problem. According to the expert, the speed of delivery matters only in the case of manned missions.

People need to be transported safely, and safe is fast

- stressed Ionin.

As for cargo, it is the cost of transportation that comes to the fore. At the same time, in order to avoid problems with supplies, the timing of the dispatch of the space nuclear tug will be calculated in such a way that it reaches the lunar orbit before the arrival of the manned spacecraft.

https://ria.ru/

Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Mikhailov

+1

15 December 2020 18: 06

Actually, such a long flight to the Moon, even with the delivery of the cargo, looks strange in itself. I remember that there were even calculations to fly to Mars in six months in a ship with a crew on board. How long does it take for such a tug to deliver 10 tons to Mars? ..
Cyril

-1

16 December 2020 18: 35

Something with such characteristics, the advantages of a nuclear tug in comparison with conventional chemical missiles look, to put it mildly, dubious. And this is even without taking into account the fact that the tug itself also needs to be put into orbit - and this will be done by conventional rockets.

Even if we take unmanned missions, then 200 days to the Moon, to which an ordinary rocket reaches in 3 days, is a colossal waste of time. Which is also, in general, a resource. Moreover, the resource is irreplaceable.

It is scary to imagine how long this tug will take to deliver 10 tons of cargo to Mars or to, say, Jupiter.
1. 123
  
  +3
  
  17 December 2020 01: 08
  
  Something with such characteristics, the advantages of a nuclear tug in comparison with conventional chemical missiles look, to put it mildly, dubious. And this is even without taking into account the fact that the tug itself also needs to be put into orbit - and this will be done by conventional rockets.
  
  What makes you so confused? The tug is put into orbit once, your favorite reusability. But you won't please. You see, do not care about the economy, give speed.
  The Russian UNIONs reach the ISS in 3 hours, which is an unattainable dream for any overseas collective farmers, but you don't like it here either. Here is the main thing for you. What about the "irreplaceable resource"?
  1. Cyril
    
    -1
    
    17 December 2020 05: 59
    
    The tug is put into orbit once, your favorite reusability. But you won't please.
    
    I have no complaints about the reusability of the tug, I don't know where you saw them.
    
    But in order for the tugboat to be able to tow the cargo from the low-earth orbit to the same Moon, someone must also bring this cargo into the low-earth orbit. And the rocket will do it. Regular.
    
    Are you catching a chip? A rocket can send cargo directly from the Earth to the Moon (and do it in 3 days), but this will not work with a tug.
    
    You see, do not care about the economy, give speed.
    
    Speed is the economy. Do you know arithmetic at the elementary level? Then calculate how long a long-term base on the Moon will last if it is supplied with 10 tons of cargo by a tug once every 1 days.
    
    Add to this what was said earlier (about the need to withdraw the cargo to the tug with conventional missiles) - and the economic advantages of the tug again turn out to be very vague.
    
    Russian UNIONs reach the ISS in 3 hours, which is an unattainable dream for any transatlantic collective farmers
    
    First, the American "collective farmers" can also fly in 3 hours. Sometime read about the American Gemini 11, which docked in an orbit with an altitude of 1386 km (at the ISS it is only about 400 m) just 1 hour and 36 minutes after launch from Earth. By the way, this flight speed record has not been broken so far. This is about your words about the alleged "unattainability" of a fast launching scheme for the Americans.
    
    Second, the the reason why a short scheme is used in Russia is simple and prosaic to the point of banality - the tightness of the Union. Even in modern versions of this spacecraft, astronauts fly in extremely cramped conditions, which, with the classic 50-hour scheme, increases crew fatigue with all the risks that come with it. Therefore, yes, for the Russian "Soyuz" the fast scheme is the best option. By the way, in order to launch the spacecraft according to this scheme, it is necessary to do a lot of additional manipulations - in particular, to correct the orbital altitude and the position of the ISS. And it is not always possible to withdraw it according to a short scheme.
    For the Americans, after the Gemini, all the manned ships had a large internal volume - including the Shuttles and Cru Dragons. In them, the astronauts felt quite free, there was no strong constraint, which allows them to normally endure a two-day flight.
    
    Third, NASA considers the classic two-day withdrawal scheme to be preferable for the following reason - astronauts have time for proper sleep and rest. The trick is that astronauts and astronauts do not start the launch from the moment they board the rocket and fly. This is preceded by a few more hours of preparation. That is, by the time they board the ship, they have been on their feet for several hours. This is followed by the flight itself, followed by an important stage of rendezvous with the station and docking. And at this stage, the cosmonaut (astronaut) must be extremely concentrated. And now add the flight with heavy overloads to several hours of preflight preparation - and by the time of docking the cosmonauts (astronauts) will come a little exhausted. With all the ensuing risks.
    
    So the 2-day scheme gives the astronauts time to fully rest for several hours, and the short (2-8 hours) scheme is not particularly.
    
    but you don't like that either.
    
    In general, I have nothing against a short flight scheme - it is optimal for Russian ships. For Americans, no.
    
    Here is the main thing for you.
    
    Namely, reusability saves much more money than reducing flight time from 50 hours to 2 hours. And if it comes to that, American reusable ships can also be launched using this short scheme. But Russian ships cannot be reusable.
    
    What about the "irreplaceable resource"?
    
    Very simple. 2 days against 2 hours of special weather do not. But 200 days versus 3 days - yes.
    1. 123
      
      +2
      
      17 December 2020 07: 03
      
      But in order for the tugboat to be able to tow the cargo from the low-earth orbit to the same Moon, someone must also bring this cargo into the low-earth orbit. And the rocket will do it. Regular.
      
      That's how it is This means that from the Earth to orbit on a reusable one, and further to the Moon on a disposable one, it is great, but from the Earth on a one-time and further (most of the way) with a reusable tugboat it is not ice Did I understand you correctly?
      
      Are you catching a chip? A rocket can send cargo directly from the Earth to the Moon (and do it in 3 days), but this will not work with a tug.
      
      And will it still be reusable? Or in this case, all claims for reuse disappear? How can you, these are light-faced elves
      
      Speed is the economy. Do you know arithmetic at the elementary level? Then calculate how long a long-term base on the Moon will last if it is supplied with 10 tons of cargo by a tug once every 1 days.
      
      NASA considers the classic two-day withdrawal scheme to be preferable for the following reason - astronauts have time for proper sleep and rest.
      
      And how do these two statements fit together? So sleep well? The cargo ship Cargo Dragon was launched on December 6 at 19:17 Moscow time, Docking took place at 21:40 Moscow time. True December 7. Surely everything went great and the load managed to sleep on the way Oh, how bad it turns out Such is the speed - the economy. Do you know arithmetic at the elementary level? Turn inside out to present elves in the best light?
      
      the reason why a short scheme is used in Russia is simple and prosaic to the point of banality - the tightness of the Union.
      For the Americans, after the Gemini, all the manned ships had a large internal volume - including the Shuttles and Cru Dragons. In them, the astronauts felt quite free, there was no strong constraint, which allows them to normally endure a two-day flight.
      
      Can you tell me where you can find the dimensions of the promenade deck and golf course on an American ship? In flight, they sit, the size of the seats is about the same. Try to fly to Tu and Il, I assure you, despite the difference in volume, the conditions will not differ much. You will not be provided with a berth or a separate compartment. And where did you get this nonsense?
      
      American "collective farmers" can also fly in 3 hours. Sometime read about the American Gemini 11, which docked in an orbit with an altitude of 1386 km (at the ISS it is only about 400 m) just 1 hour and 36 minutes after launch from Earth. By the way, this flight speed record has not been broken so far. This is about your words about the alleged "unattainability" of a fast launching scheme for the Americans.
      
      The flight took place on September 12, 1966, since then the elves have decently degraded, the feat of their grandfathers is beyond their power, they get tired quickly and want to sleep. I remembered .... Do you at least do something quickly? Yes, I'm tired ...
      However, in 1966 they did not differ in their efficiency. Because of this, the spacewalk was terminated. Total 2 records for docking speed and fatigue
      
      Namely, reusability saves much more money than reducing flight time from 50 hours to 2 hours. And if it comes to that, American reusable ships can also be launched using this short scheme.
      
      They can but want: Here it is .. But what about time-money? For more than 50 years have they been poking the economy from the high bell tower? Did you talk about them? Reusable ships, economic benefits ... blah, blah, blah ... your attempts to get out are simply pathetic
      
      But Russian ships cannot be reusable.
      
      Well then keep ... an answer in the style of your logic. They can, but they don't.
      1. Cyril
        
        -2
        
        19 December 2020 13: 50
        
        Here it is like belay So from the Earth to orbit on a reusable one, and further to the Moon on a disposable one is great, but from the Earth on a one-time and further (most of the way) by a reusable tugboat it is not ice laughing Did I understand you correctly?
        
        First, who said that before the moon is mandatory for a one-off? "Starship" is planned to be completely reusable, that is, a reusable stage will carry the cargo to the Moon.
        
        Secondly. If a reusable tug of 10 tons drags up to the Moon for 200 days, then yes, it may well be more profitable on a disposable, but faster and capable of carrying more cargo, a chemical rocket.
        
        For example, Saturn 5, whose launch cost in 2014 prices was a little over a billion dollars, threw almost 47 tons (the mass of Apollo) on the moon in 1 launch for 3 days.
        
        To "take" the same amount of cargo to the Moon using a tug with the characteristics specified in the article, you will need 5 of its flights, each with a duration of 400 days (200 days there and 200 days back).
        
        Reusability is an important but not the only characteristic of a spacecraft. It is not valuable in itself, but as a means of reducing the cost of operating a spacecraft. In this case, the tug's reusability (its advantage) is leveled by its low speed and low carrying capacity (its disadvantages).
        
        And will it still be reusable? Or in this case, all claims for reuse disappear? How can you, these are light-faced elves
        
        It may well be reusable - "Starship", for example, is planned to be just reusable.
        
        You have some childish attempts to pin me up, it is so touching. Some elves ...
        
        And how do these two statements fit together?
        
        These 2 statements do not apply to each other at all. One is about the economics of flights to the Moon, the other is about the economics of flights to the ISS. Two different situations with different requirements. This is only in your universe, where there is no logic, these concepts must somehow correlate with each other.
        
        So sleep well?
        
        If we are talking about manned flights, yes, it’s to get enough sleep.
        
        The cargo ship Cargo Dragon was launched on December 6 at 19:17 Moscow time, Docking took place at 21:40 Moscow time. True December 7. Surely everything went great and the load managed to get enough sleep along the way laughing How bad it turns out no This is the speed - the economy.
        
        What a good example. Let's compare the advantages and disadvantages of long versus short unmanned flights to the ISS:
        
        - the short scheme has the advantage of reducing the flight time from two days to 3 hours, the disadvantages are additional calculations of the spacecraft trajectory, the need to correct the ISS orbit and position, the requirements for complementarity of the ISS and space truck orbit, which significantly limit the "launch windows".
        
        - The long scheme has the advantages of less stringent launch requirements (and, therefore, less restrictions on "launch windows"), no need to adjust the position and orbit of the ISS, as well as the complementarity of the station and spacecraft orbits. The disadvantage is the longer delivery of goods.
        
        The question in this case is whether the savings achieved by reducing delivery time outweigh the costs associated with stricter requirements and additional work to reduce this delivery?
        
        Could you tell me where you can find the dimensions of the promenade deck and golf course on an American ship? laughing They sit in flight, the size of the seats is about the same. Try to fly to Tu and Il, I assure you, despite the difference in volume, the conditions will not differ much. You will not be provided with a berth or a separate compartment. And where did you get this nonsense?
        
        This "nonsense" (in the sense of arguing the expediency of a short flight by the tightness of the "Soyuz") I gathered ... from Russian experts in the space industry. You can read it here - https://ria.ru/20130329/930003296.html. And here - https://www.interfax.ru/russia/620728
        
        One of the developers of the new "short" circuit, Rafail Murtazin, Deputy Head of the Ballistics Department, RSC Energia says that the idea to speed up the delivery of astronauts to the ISS arose with the appearance on board the Soyuz of "guests" - space tourists.
        For all their merits, the Soyuz are very cramped ships. Each of the three crew members in the descent vehicle has only 0,5 cubic meters of free space, and taking into account the utility compartment - 1,2 cubic meters. And in such a "box" three people spent about 50 hours - docking with the ISS according to a two-day scheme took place on orbits 34.
        
        Ранее chief designer of manned space complexes, RSC Energia Sergei Romanov confirmed plans to use short docking schemes to reduce the time it takes to deliver cosmonauts to the ISS. "The main goal of reducing the flight time to the ISS is to ensure the shortest stay of astronauts in a small ship volume, thereby providing them with greater comfort, "- quotes his words in the press service of Roscosmos.
        
        And yes, the useful volume in the same Cru Dragon is more than in the Union. The data can be viewed on Wikipedia (if you know how to use it).
        
        And, by the way, no one argues with the need to reduce costs the expediency of a short flight scheme. It is quite possible that due to the need for additional work (adjustments to the station, calculations of the trajectory of the ship itself, etc.), there is no cost reduction in comparison with the standard two-day scheme.
        
        The flight took place on September 12, 1966, since then the elves have decently degraded, the feat of their grandfathers is beyond their power, they get tired quickly and want to sleep. I remembered .... Do you at least do something quickly? Yes, I'm tired ...
        
        Firstly, it is only you who are degrading so far :)
        
        Secondly, if you think that only American astronauts note problems with fatigue, then I hasten to upset you. Quote (from the first link):
        
        The "short" scheme was tested during the launches of three cargo "Progress", and now it has been tested for the first time by astronauts.
        
        She is not without flaws - the crew has a very long "working day" - about 18-20 hours, because they cannot sleep in orbit... In addition, they have to spend 11 hours in a spacesuit.
        
        By the way, the Progress launches according to a short scheme were carried out to test it before manned flights, and not to reduce costs :)
        
        However, in 1966 they did not differ in their efficiency. Because of this, the spacewalk was terminated. Total 2 records for docking speed and fatigue
        
        And now again the quote:
        
        In the practice of manned flights, the record set by the crew of the American Gemini-11 spacecraft (Charles Conrad and Richard Gordon), which docked to the Agena rocket just 1 hour 34 minutes after launch, remains unbeatable.
        
        Georgy Beregovoy could break this record - already on the first orbit his Soyuz-3 spacecraft approached the unmanned Soyuz-2, however, due to manual errors docking failed.
        
        As you can see, Soviet / Russian cosmonauts also experience problems due to fatigue during short flights.
        
        They can but want to: Here it is ..
        
        Indeed, they can. The flight of Jamini 11 proved it.
        
        What about time is money?
        
        This is a question of the balance between economy and safety.
        
        Well then keep ... an answer in the style of your logic. They can, but they don't.
        
        You see, what is your catch when you try to ascribe to me some kind of "logic" of your own:
        
        - Americans are good at fast flights (this was proved by Jamini-11 and 8-hour flights on Skylab), but they refused because of security reasons - therefore they do not use it.
        
        - and the Russians want reusable ships - this is evidenced by attempts to develop "Buran", "Spiral", "Clipper", "Rus", "Eagle" and other reusable devices :) But they cannot yet.
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        19 December 2020 22: 15
        
        If a reusable tug of 10 tons drags up to the Moon for 200 days, then yes, it may well be more profitable on a disposable, but faster and capable of carrying more cargo, a chemical rocket.
        
        True? How can faster and more expensive delivery reduce costs? Roughly speaking, cargo delivery by a tug costs a ruble, a rocket costs 2 rubles. The rocket is faster, it can make, say, 2 flights, but the delivery of a kilogram of cargo will cost the same 2 rubles. This amount will not turn into a ruble or 50 kopecks
        
        Reusability is an important but not the only characteristic of a spacecraft. It is not valuable in itself, but as a means of reducing the cost of operating a spacecraft.
        
        This quote must be cast in bronze So "reusability" is only the goal of achieving economic efficiency? It is still difficult to judge about the tug, the data is obscenely scarce. I got this kind of assessment:
        
        Application of "TEM" will reduce the cost of cargo transportation by at least 2 times to the moon. However, it is also being developed as a means of delivering a payload to the orbits of the planets of the solar system and their satellites.
        
        In this case, the tug's reusability (its advantage) is leveled by its low speed and low carrying capacity (its disadvantages).
        
        What does light duty mean? As far as they have designed, they will take as much. Rockets are also made with different carrying capacities. Not the fact that there will be a need to deliver 50 tons to the moon. And why drive a rocket empty? In terms of low speed, this is a cargo ship, it is built for cheap transportation and not setting speed records. You know, tankers and bulk carriers at sea are also not the fastest. The disadvantages are clearly far-fetched.
        
        These 2 statements do not apply to each other at all. One is about the economics of flights to the Moon, the other is about the economics of flights to the ISS.
        
        What is it like? Two different economies? In my opinion these are double standards The economy is also Africa's economy.
        
        Two different situations with different requirements.
        
        What are these different requirements? We are talking about the cost of shipping goods. Did you come up with these "different requirements" on the fly?
        
        This is only in your universe, where there is no logic, these concepts must somehow correlate with each other.
        
        And after all of the above, you will tell me about logic
        
        What a good example. Let's compare the advantages and disadvantages of long versus short unmanned flights to the ISS
        
        And let's not put a shadow on the fence. We're talking about the economy, you say that faster is more efficient, money is time. But the goods are sent according to a long scheme, no excuses about the need to sleep in this case do not work. Therefore, speed is not the determining factor in this case. You love logic so much
        
        - and the Russians want reusable ships - this is evidenced by attempts to develop "Buran", "Spiral", "Clipper", "Rus", "Eagle" and other reusable devices :) But they cannot yet.
        
        Buran is reusable, it flew. So they can. Dzhemeni flew on the "short circuit" means they can.
        Doesn't this suit you? Then why don't the Americans fly the short circuit? Or can't they?
        
        Cyril
        
        -1
        
        22 December 2020 23: 15
        
        True? How can faster and more expensive delivery reduce costs? Roughly speaking, cargo delivery by a tug costs a ruble, a rocket costs 2 rubles. The rocket is faster, it can make, say, 2 flights, but the delivery of a kilogram of cargo will cost the same 2 rubles. This amount will not turn into a ruble or 50 kopecks
        
        It's simple. Let's consider the situation.
        
        There is a task to send 100 tons of cargo to the Moon.
        
        The tug pulls 10 tons, the price of 1 launch (voyage) is ruble. Therefore, to deliver 100 tons to the moon, he will need to make 10 flights. That is 10 rubles.
        
        And this is without taking into account the cost of launching cargo from Earth into orbit up to the tug itself.
        
        The rocket pulls 50 tons to the Moon (we take the parameters of Saturn-5), the launch price (flight) is 2 rubles. To transport the same 100 tons, 2 launches are required. That is, only 4 rubles. In this case, the rocket launches from the ground, no additional launches are needed.
        
        Of course, if you need to throw only 10 tons to the moon, then it is more profitable to use a tug and pay 1 ruble, and not a rocket with a carrying capacity of 50 tons and a cost of 2 rubles. However, this is true only on condition that there is no conventional rocket with a lifting capacity to the Moon similar to the tug. Such a rocket will also cost less than the rocket that pulled 50 tons.
        
        In short, the benefits of using a particular vehicle must be viewed in the context of the tasks. And analyze the characteristics of the vehicle as a whole, and not separately. The tug has a lower delivery price, but the carrying capacity is lower and the speed is (much).
        
        Now about the speed.
        
        Do you know which transport is the cheapest? Marine (water). Do you know which transport is the most expensive? Air?
        
        Then why do people use not only water transport, but also aviation? Moreover, the aircraft and the carrying capacity is much less than that of some tanker or dry cargo ship.
        
        And the answer is simple - speed. A plane can fly from one end of the planet to another in 6 hours, a tanker can sail for weeks. The aircraft compensates for its high cost and low carrying capacity with a high speed, and the tanker compensates for its slow speed with low cost and huge carrying capacity.
        
        The problem of a tug in the parameters in which it is given in the article is that, with a low cost of delivery, it is much inferior to conventional missiles in terms of carrying capacity and speed.
        
        I do not argue that even with such characteristics there are niches where its use is expedient - for example, it can be used to send a scientific apparatus. In scientific missions, time rarely plays a significant role - you can stretch the flight for a year, 3, 5, 7 years, it's not so scary. And the mass of the vehicles is small, the tug is quite capable of pulling. And in such situations, its low shipping cost will play a big role.
        
        But if you need to organize the supply of the permanent lunar base - the delivery of food, equipment, clothing. spacesuits, delivery of astronauts to shift?
        
        And if you need to establish production logistics between a mining enterprise on the Moon and Earth?
        
        for both situations 200 days on the way and 10 tons of maximum load is too high a charge for only 2 times less shipping cost.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        23 December 2020 07: 32
        
        It's simple. Let's consider the situation.
        
        There is a task to send 100 tons of cargo to the Moon.
        The tug pulls 10 tons, the price of 1 launch (voyage) is ruble. Therefore, to deliver 100 tons to the moon, he will need to make 10 flights. That is 10 rubles.
        And this is without taking into account the cost of launching cargo from Earth into orbit up to the tug itself.
        The rocket pulls 50 tons to the Moon (we take the parameters of Saturn-5), the launch price (flight) is 2 rubles. To transport the same 100 tons, 2 launches are required. That is, only 4 rubles. In this case, the rocket launches from the ground, no additional launches are needed.
        
        1) About, "excluding the cost of launching cargo from the Earth into orbit up to the tug itself." The cost of launching a cargo from the ground into orbit will be approximately the same in both cases, so it is not worth considering.
        2) What does "launch price (flight) - 2 rubles" mean 1 and 2 rubles is the cost of delivery for "a kilogram of cargo".
        3) The fact that the carrying capacity of the rocket is more in this case does not matter. First, what if you need to deliver not 50 tons, but 10 or 20? The rocket may be smaller and the tug larger. After all, no one says that 10 tons is a ceiling, they just build a tug that way.
        4) What do you mean "the rocket starts from the ground, no additional launches are needed"?
        For example, the weight of the Angara is more than 70 tons. 1 kg of the weight of the rocket itself accounts for about 11 kg of fuel. The tug is launched once, the service life is planned for about 1 years. There is no need to drag fuel from the Earth. For a rocket, each time it is necessary to lift into orbit the fuel needed on the way to the Moon and, apparently, on the way back. And this fuel will be the "cargo" that must be delivered to orbit.
        
        In short, the benefits of using a particular vehicle must be viewed in the context of the tasks. And analyze the characteristics of the vehicle as a whole, and not separately. The tug has a lower delivery price, but also the carrying capacity is less, and the speed (much).
        
        That's what I'm talking about, the delivery price is lower Lower carrying capacity in this case is not a drawback but a design feature. It was designed like this, I don't see any obstacles to building a larger one, say 50 tons, as well as the appearance of a 10-ton rocket.
        
        Now about the speed.
        Do you know which transport is the cheapest? Marine (water). Do you know which transport is the most expensive? Air?
        
        You might be surprised, I know. I am writing to you about this for the second day, but you stubbornly fail to notice it. A tug is a "sea" transport, and an "air" rocket. Nobody says that "planes" are not needed once there are ships. But shipping "by sea" is cheaper. How important it is you can determine by comparing the volume of sea and air traffic.
        
        I do not argue that even with such characteristics there are niches where its use is expedient - for example, it can be used to send a scientific apparatus. In scientific missions, time rarely plays a significant role - you can stretch the flight for a year, 3, 5, 7 years, it's not so scary. And the mass of the vehicles is small, the tug is quite capable of pulling. And in such situations, its low shipping cost will play a big role.
        
        It is for this that it is created, for "deep space" (in the sense for flights in the solar system), Mars, Venus and so on. It will be able to work where there is not enough light for solar panels. But even when flying to the Moon, the benefits are obvious.
        
        But if you need to organize the supply of the permanent lunar base - the delivery of food, equipment, clothing. spacesuits, delivery of astronauts to shift?
        
        This can be done with the help of the Rocket, because no one offers to send astronauts on it. Food and people on the rocket, but the equipment, if not urgent, can be towed.
        
        And if you need to establish production logistics between a mining enterprise on the Moon and Earth?
        
        You shouldn't even start here without him. What do you want to mine on the moon to pay off? Have you ever seen mining equipment alive? Can you imagine its weight?
        
        for both situations 200 days on the way and 10 tons of maximum load is too high a charge for only 2 times less shipping cost.
        
        How big are you talking about? Is this song good, start over?
2. ODRAP
  
  -3
  
  17 December 2020 12: 52
  
  Any tug, it is not high-speed, but maneuverable!
  It will be necessary to drag the Earth to the Moon ...
ODRAP

-2

16 December 2020 19: 04

Payload from orbit to orbit?
An interesting parameter ....
1. Cyril
  
  -1
  
  16 December 2020 21: 25
  
  This is a valid parameter. The orbits have different heights relative to the Earth - therefore, the device needs to overcome gravity.
  1. ODRAP
    
    -3
    
    17 December 2020 12: 56
    
    I heard about gravity, of course.
    Is it the same at the bottom of the "well" and at an altitude of 400 km? Seems to me, move from orbit to orbit, a little different weight? I also heard about the difference in weight and mass.
    1. Cyril
      
      -1
      
      18 December 2020 17: 28
      
      Is it the same at the bottom of the "well" and at an altitude of 400 km?
      
      Different, but at this height, this difference is insignificant.
      1. ODRAP
        
        0
        
        18 December 2020 17: 48
        
        Not that I question it. As it was not closely interested
        But, isn't it the first step, the most powerful? And after all, attraction does not weaken linearly?
        
        Cyril
        
        -2
        
        18 December 2020 18: 54
        
        Since gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, a space station 400 km above the Earth's surface experiences almost the same gravity as we do on the Earth's surface.
        
        At an altitude of 350 kilometers (the height of the station), the acceleration of gravity has a value of 8,8 m / s², which is only 10% less than on the surface of the Earth.
        
        This is from Wiki.
        
        ODRAP
        
        0
        
        18 December 2020 20: 23
        
        Thank you, I'll remember.