Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China and Russia to Launch Joint Mars Mission

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:00 AM
from the we-might-get-there-someday dept.
The Interfacer writes "China and Russia are planning a joint mission to Mars that will bring back samples to earth and land on one of the red planet's tiny moons, state media quoted a Chinese scientist as saying Wednesday." From the article: "Russia will launch the spacecraft, while China will provide the survey equipment to carry out the unmanned exploration, Ye Peijian, a senior scientist at the Chinese Academy of Space Technology, told a meeting in Beijing, according to the official Xinhua news agency."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] First Details of Manned Mars Mission From NASA 329 comments
OriginalArlen writes "The BBC has a first look at NASA's initial concepts for a manned Mars mission, currently penciled in for 2031. The main vehicle would be assembled on orbit over three or four launches of the planned Ares V heavy lift rocket. New abilities to repair, replace, and even produce replacement parts will be needed to provide enough self-sufficiency for a 30 months mission, including 16 months on the surface. The presentation was apparently delivered at a meeting of the Lunar Exploration Management Group, although there's nothing on their site yet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Oh dear. (Score:5, Funny)

    by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:02AM (#15977805)
    Red planet, ha ha.
    • by PIPBoy3000 (619296) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:32AM (#15978067)
      China and Russia have rarely gotten along. In decades past, they had a good chunk of their nukes pointed at each other, large armies stationed at their border, and their politics didn't always match dispite their supposed shared Communism.

      These days, you'd be hard pressed to call either country Communist. I think of both as sort of Wild-West capitalist societies. Now they seem to be forming an economic alliance against the other growing political powers - mostly Europe and the US. It's been interesting watching how similar their replies are in the current Iran negotiations.

      I think they're both interested in developing their high tech sectors, and see it as a natural partnership. Russia has lots of experience, while China has a very well-developed industrial base.
        • "They attempt to make up for their own lack of education by forcing their twisted ideas about the world on others, including people and organizations who wish to improve our understanding of nature via the scientific method."

          Thank you for stero typing. I'm a christian, probably not a fundamentalist, but a Bible belivin Christian. I have a college education in software engineering. Also, 3 of the Math professors, 2 engineering professors and a physics professor at my college were all christians. I would s

          • by Rei (128717) on Friday August 25 2006, @12:10PM (#15979054) Homepage
            Actually, this graph is pretty telling (NASA budget as percentage of government spending):

            http://www.asi.org/images/2003/NASA-budget-as-perc entage-1962-2004-MM.png [asi.org]

            Lyndon B. Johnson (D): Huge increase, then a moderate decrease.
            Richard Nixon (R): Large decrease
            Jimmy Carter (D): Small decrease
            Ronald Reagan (R): Small decrease
            George Bush Sr. (R): Small increase
            Bill Clinton (D): tiny decrease
            George Bush Jr. (R): tiny decrease

            Now, factor in the fact that Republicans are "all about" cutting government income and spending as a whole (whether or not they succeed), and you get that democrats are bigger supporters of NASA than Republicans. However, even with that, it's clearly not a very partisan issue.
              • Like it or not, he's right about this one.

                For your enjoyment:

                NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:

                # 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;

                # 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;

                # 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;

                # 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;

                # 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;

                # 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;

                # 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;

                # 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;

                # 2001
  • or is it civ4? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by legoburner (702695) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:02AM (#15977813) Homepage Journal
    Isaac Asimov: There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

    Any space program is good news in my mind.
    • Well, you pose a good point. However, as this Space.com article from 2001 [space.com] states:

      The Russian Space Agency already has a hard time completing crucial supply spacecraft for the International Space Station. Now it has committed to build spacecraft for China and help train Chinese astronauts, possibly leaving the space station grasping for seconds.

      China and Russia can be friends [heritage.org] or the "NATO of the East" or whatever you want to call it. But, to surpass your role in the ISS and instead strike up another work

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        The V2 program wasn't a space program. The rockets weren't designed to reach space, they were designed to hit targets up to around 300 km away and deliver a warhead of up to a metric ton.
  • Why would they go to all that trouble of making such a huge trip and not land on the planet???

    I know maybe it has larger risks but COME ON, it's not like you go to Mars every week.

    • by loose electron (699583) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:38AM (#15978129) Homepage
      IMHO ? Gravity.

      Getting on and off of a moon with a very low level of gravity is easier and cheaper than landing on something where you need to land and launch,while fighting the planets gravitational pull.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      > Why would they go to all that trouble of making such a huge trip and not land on the planet???
      > I know maybe it has larger risks but COME ON, it's not like you go to Mars every week.

      Russian scientists have been obsessed with Phobos for decades. There is a lot of science and discovery on that tiny moon, including samples of Mars (blown into space and swept onto Phobos) and other solar system bodies. Landing on Phobos is worlds easier than Mars itself, and there is an amount of preservation available
  • Capricorn 2 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:05AM (#15977843) Homepage Journal
    The day has arrived when a Russian/Chinese announcement of a Mars mission is believable, while the American president's announcement [google.com] is mere political propaganda.
  • by pablo_max (626328) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:07AM (#15977863)
    who hopes this sparks a real space race? Although, it would be a shame it was all for the sake of going there and then doing nothing again for 40 years.
  • by peter303 (12292) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:07AM (#15977864)
    HASA has either suspended or cancelled outright nearly half of its space probe missions due to cost constraints. These compete against the Shuttle Return To Space, the new Orion manned spacecraft, ISS construction, and the presidential Return to the Moon and Mars initiatives. So its nice other countries are picking up the slack.
  • by w33t (978574) on Friday August 25 2006, @10:21AM (#15977969) Homepage
    What's keeping the US from joining with them?

    If it's feasable that the US alone could go to mars, and that Russia and China together can go to mars - then could not all three work together to achieve this goal better?

    Or is it neccessary to have the "us" and "them" philosophy when it comes to these kinds of projects?

    Must there always be an adversary?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Sure, the US could push for a multilateral approach to space exploration. Now, stop and think about the current state of affairs in the 'states and you'll see why this isn't likely to happen.

      Ths US has a massive deficit, and little actual interest in spaceflight. I have no doubt that NASA could get to Mars and back again, if they had both the budget and the full support of congress and the general public. But in the absence of either, there is little room for new spaceflight programs in their agenda. An
  • Me too! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Friday August 25 2006, @11:02AM (#15978343)

    I'm planning a mission to Mars to be launched from my backyard in 2012.

    *Anyone* can *plan* a mission.

  • by khallow (566160) on Friday August 25 2006, @11:02AM (#15978350)

    Russia really benefits, if this goes through. This sort of thing has the potential to guarantee substantial launch volume for them. Always a nice thing to have. And given China's economy, I suspect that China sooner or later will be paying most of the bills.

    I find it interesting that China apparently is forgoing the launch vehicles. I think this is a big shift in the focus of their space program. Maybe from a strategic angle, they think that they can build up their launch systems later or maybe buy/steal the necessary technology from Russia.

  • by lobotomir (882610) on Friday August 25 2006, @11:34AM (#15978682)
    This is a link [energia.ru] to an interview with the General Designer of Russia's Korolev Space and Rocket Corporation. Interesting information about the Clipper space transportation system, and also about ion engine spaceships that they plan to send to the Moon and Mars.
  • by damburger (981828) on Friday August 25 2006, @12:19PM (#15979134)
    Anyone else get the nice google ad?

    Visiting Mars? Find Deals & Read Hotel Reviews!
    • Re:Why Mars? (Score:5, Informative)

      by SSCGWLB (956147) <nate AT nmt DOT edu> on Friday August 25 2006, @11:01AM (#15978336)
      Well, Mars anv Venus are closest. Unfortunately the atmosphere of Venus is very unfriendly to humans/machines.

      Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface--a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 C." cite [wikipedia.org].

      The next closest planets are Mercury and Jupiter, you wouldn't want to visit them either. Mercury is basically a semi-molten ball of rock, Jupiter is no treat with its high gravity, high winds, and very little (if any) crust. The planets don't get any better the further you get away from the sun. Basically, Mars is the only planet close enough and similiar enough to Earth to have any hope of visiting (and staying) for any useful amount of time.