Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011 376

Posted by timothy from the rusty-dusty dept.
weekendwarrior1980 writes "A group of Russian space experts on Friday announced an ambitious plan to send a six-man crew to Mars within a decade, a project it said would cost only $3.5 billion. Russian space officials dismissed the project as nonsense. They plan to have 6 people explore Mars for months before returning to Earth. The Mission would take 3 years, and would depend on fully equipped spacecraft containing its own garden, medical facilities etc."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011 More

Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:3, Flamebait)

    by MrNonchalant ( 767683 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @09:58PM (#8834578)
    Should be just about as feasible as the Bush space plan.

    Oh wait...

  • Pevo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In Soviet Russia, Mars plans impossible trip to YOU!

  • Sweet (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TyrelHaveman ( 159881 )
    It's about time someone set a goal like this. Human expansion to Mars is a great idea -- it will push our technology (and some human beings in the process) to new limits. Personally, I've always wanted to go to Mars... I just don't want to take the trip there. Zero gee ain't for me! (Even if it's just for a while until we get a centrifuge running)

    • Re:Sweet (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:14PM (#8834704) Homepage Journal

      Yea, right. Don't get your hopes up. If part of your plan involves a "reality TV show"... well, maybe you shouldn't be taken too seriously until you produce something more than a press conference...

      • Re:Sweet (Score:3, Funny)

        by metlin ( 258108 )
        Yup, it would be quite cool for all the people on TV to watch it, would it not?

        But what would happen if the trip did not succeed? And if all the six astronauts died?

        Now, if that happened on TV too? It would put back space exploration by *ages* - people would be scared shit.

        And that is not a good thing.

        Which is why, I hope such projects are not encouraged - they would have scary backlashes. And some moron presidents would use that as a tool and say that since its unsafe, they are going to concentrate on

      • Re:Sweet (Score:3, Funny)

        by Thomas Miconi ( 85282 )
        If part of your plan involves a "reality TV show"...

        "If you want Ivan to stay in the capsule, call 04321. If you want Boris to stay, call 01234..."

        Hmmm, sorry Boris, nothing personal - clic, fizzz, voila, Mars' first organic satellite !

        Thomas Miconi
    • Where do I sign up? And where can I start learning Russian?

    • Re:Sweet (Score:2, Insightful)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 )
      Am I the only one who dosen't think this is really great and in fact hopes that it won't happen?

      You can't sterilize humans without killing them and you can't resonably expect their suits and equipment to remain sterile after the first use. If astro/cosmonauts were sent to mars now it would be a total disaster. All results of any subsequent experiments looking for current life on the surface of Mars would be thrown into doubt.

      At least do a few sample return missions before we send a dirty infectious human.

      • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Informative)

        by Babbster ( 107076 ) <aaronbabb&gmail,com> on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:17PM (#8835076) Homepage
        EXACTLY! This is why we also shouldn't attempt to cure human ailments by cutting people open. Every last one of them would die from some kind of infection.

        Sterilization isn't as difficult as you seem to think, especially when said "dirty infectious human[s]" would be encased in tough spacesuits which would be easy to sterilize chemically.

      • Re:Sweet (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john&jmaug,com> on Monday April 12, 2004 @04:19AM (#8836146)
        YEAH! Exactly! You're so right, we should never send humans to mars cause since the second they step outside the space craft they will contaminate the whole planet. And don't give me any nonsense about them using sterile suits (like those make believe bunny suits the Intel guys wear, we all know they're really working on that stuff completely naked!) How would you even manage to get a suit on an astronaut, that's immpossible. And how would you seal it so no contaminents get out? You'd need some kind of air tight suit for space, we can call it a space suit. And we all know those don't exist so we should deffinitely hold off on human exploration of mars till we can invent "space suits."

        Ahem, to quote the Daily Show "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it."

  • ooh!! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ToadMan8 ( 521480 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:01PM (#8834612)
    I wonder if I announced my own space program I could get on Slashdot too!!
    I'm gonna get there in THREE years and stay for 17 months and only need a taxi and a Swiss Army Knife!!

  • Funded by Reality TV? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Beeswarm ( 693535 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:01PM (#8834613)
    Taken from the article:

    Alexandrov didn't explain how his firm would raise the funds, but said one of the reasons he thought such a mission would be profitable was it could involve a "reality" television show.

    Just what we need. Survivor in space. You don't even want to know what happens to the guy who gets voted off the spaceship.

  • What if they're right? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:02PM (#8834620) Homepage Journal
    My first reaction on reading this, like the Russian bigwigs', was "bullshit." A Mars mission for a signle percentile of the estimated cost, with funding from a TV show? It sounds like every bad sci-fi "masterpiece" ever written by an over-enthusiastic fourteen-year-old.

    But ... what if they know something NASA and the Russian equivalent don't know? I mean, just about every time some obscure group of private would-be genius inventors announces something great, it turns out to be vaporware. But every once in a while, these obscure people turn out to be the Wright brothers, or Goddard.

    So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?

  • safe? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lehk228 ( 705449 )
    Seems to me that any "low cost" mission to mars would be suicide seeing as it's still dangerous with expensive NASA tech, I sure wouldn't want to get on a ship for mars that only cost 3.5 billion, seeing as the U.S. has Bombers that cost 1 Billion and a bomber is far simpler than an interplanetary voyage.

    • Re:safe? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:14PM (#8834703)
      The correlation between funding and safety is rather a weak one. Our government may not be able to work as efficiently as this group and the engineers at NASA may not be as dedicated to the project. The largest problem this group faces is securing any funding at all and being able to set up the facilities to get this project done. It is analagous to a big business and a small business working on the same thing.
    • hey, there has to be some excitement in it you know..

    • Re:safe? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      Your ofrget that US bombers have cutting edge stealth technology that require a repaint if they get scratched, since that makes tehm sho up on radar. Among other things, not neading that really cuts down on hte price. So it could be possible, just like the guy that made a cruise missle for 5k.

      • Re:safe? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Lshmael ( 603746 )
        Do you have any links to back up your assertion? While the cruise missile guy exists [aardvark.co.nz] (although he did not actually build the missile, just asserted it was theoretically possible), I have found nothing about the stealth bomber's necessity to be repainted.

        You also forget that cruise missiles do not carry passengers. Similarly, if your stealth bomber does show up on enemy radar, there is no guarantee that you will die. If your poorly made Russian reality TV spaceship has problems, then you are just screwe

        • Re:safe? (Score:5, Informative)

          by WhiteBandit ( 185659 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:18PM (#8835082) Homepage
          Do you have any links to back up your assertion? While the cruise missile guy exists [aardvark.co.nz] (although he did not actually build the missile, just asserted it was theoretically possible), I have found nothing about the stealth bomber's necessity to be repainted.

          Taken from the this site [google.com]:
          Stealth coatings present a host of other problems. To be effective, the plane's surface must be kept perfectly slick. Exposure to rain or hail can cause nicks and scratches that dramatically increase the craft's radar signature. Even optimal flying conditions take a toll on a plane's skin. In a study released in June 1998, congressional investigators who observed a B-2 after one test flight reported that the plane "had damaged tape, caulk, paint, and heat tiles.... In addition, we observed hydraulic fluid leaks beneath the aircraft that further damaged the caulk."

          If you dig around google, you will find other relavent links as well.

    • Re:safe? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Daneboy ( 315359 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:39PM (#8835180) Journal
      But then again, your spaceship probably wouldn't have any $5,000 toilet seats, right?! :-) NASA tech is overrated! They STILL haven't found anything better to do with those huge empty space shuttle external fuel tanks than just let them burn up after each use. How 'bout a little boost to get 'em into orbit, then doing something with 'em? I mean, there's got to be SOMEthing useful we could in space with a handful of big, sturdy, airtight containers. Live in them, store stuff in them, build something in them, whatever -- but using them as giant disposable lighters just can NOT be the most cost-efficient thing...

  • Money shmoney (Score:4, Funny)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:04PM (#8834640) Journal
    Imagine the exclusive tv rights for the entire trip! Plus selling one of the seats to the highest bidder, you could get enough funding if you had a good start and credibility, and didnt blow 40% of the budget on hookers and booze like most government contracters (they then outsource the project for 20% of the budget and keep the rest).

  • Mars, a pipe dream (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 )
    While it is indisputable that the technology that is required to travel to Mars and establish a rudimentary colony around the hull of the space craft and any transported plants and animals exists and can be taken to Mars (at great cost), it is highly doubtful that they would be able to bring themselves back from the red planet.

    The cost of taking the fuel for the return trip would be absolutely astronomical considering the extensive modifications necessary to ensure that the fuel does not leak over the cour

    • Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lsdino ( 24321 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:14PM (#8834709) Homepage
      Ahh, whatever...

      If someone wants to risk their life to be the first human to land on another planet AND they can find someone to pay for it, I say let 'em go.

      All the unmanned exploration in the pristine Mars will not advance the human cause as much as landing people there. Not only are there bound to be large scientific break throughs from the effort, but there are bound to be large psychological break throughs as well. And it ultimately is a great insurance policy for the survival of the human species.

      As an aside if anyone hasn't read Red Mars / Blue Mars / Green Mars (by Kim Stanley Robinson) its a great triology that deals with the colonization mars in a really interesting way. So if you're looking for something to read, check it out...
      • All the unmanned exploration in the pristine Mars will not advance the human cause as much as landing people there.

        Which cause would that be, exactly? Don't make the mistake of believing that what you consider obvious/universal, others do as well.

        Not only are there bound to be large scientific break throughs from the effort,

        We'd get more data on mars, sure, but how useful is that likely to be?

        but there are bound to be large psychological break throughs as well.

        Anything we couldn't get back he

    • Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:5, Funny)

      by ChowyChow ( 149961 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:20PM (#8834749) Homepage
      a mission of putting the cart before the horse.
      You do realize we're talking about Soviet Russia.

    • Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:5, Funny)

      by Suffering Bastard ( 194752 ) * on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:27PM (#8834803)

      We have just discovered real evidence of flowing water once existing on the planet, and this in turn could lead to evidence of fossilized microbes and other lifeforms that we would threaten with destruction if we were to introduce Earth microbes that the Martian microbes could not fight.

      Doesn't it seem more likely that our microbial organisms wouldn't stand a chance against Martian organisms fighting on their own turf? What makes Earth organisms so tough?

      Come to think of it, we should send well armed Earth bacteria to Mars in a preemptive assault against those mad, raving Martian microbes frothing at the mouth for their chance to dominate our culture. It's the patriotic duty of all Earth citizens to help liberate the Red Planet!

      Dramatic conflict is better for TV ratings.

    • Don't you wish that you studied or simply read something. All you need is H2 and energy (solar or nuke). From that you can create CH4 (methane) +H20 + O2 quite easily. Now, you take a small amount of extra H2 and viola, presto fuel for the return trip.

      But I still think that it is wrong to come back. It should be a one way trip for colinization. We may lose one or two groups, but I rather think that if we send several mission worth of colonists there, with proper equipment that they will survive.
    • This is getting really, really dull. A few /.ers spew some FUD about how it's dangerous or expensive or 'a pipe dream' and then I gotta come in and lay out the truth for them to not believe again.

      While it is indisputable that the technology that is required to travel to Mars and establish a rudimentary colony around the hull of the space craft and any transported plants and animals exists and can be taken to Mars (at great cost), it is highly doubtful that they would be able to bring themselves back from

    • Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Informative)

      by Moofie ( 22272 )
      So you refine your return fuel on the surface of Mars. Entirely feasible.

  • Served! It's On! (Score:5, Funny)

    by lsdino ( 24321 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:06PM (#8834654) Homepage
    George has his plan, and Russians have their plan... It looks like the US has been served!

    I can see the movie now... Space Race 2: Mars

    It'll come to a thrilling climax. The Russian plan is filled with set backs allowing the US to catch up. But the Russians manage to launch first! But the US manages to catch up at the last minute and astronauts from both teams come touching down at nearly the same time.

    No one knows who landed first! And there's only one way to prove who gets the title: It's On!

  • Quite possible, because... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heretic108 ( 454817 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:07PM (#8834655)
    ...in Russia, in aerospace/military contracts, it's unlikely the gov would be paying $1100 for a screwdriver, $90 for a single common LED, $150 for a single rack-mounting bolt etc.

    If a New Zealander can construct a viable cruise missile for less than $5000US, then quite possibly $3.5B would go as far in Russia as $200B goes in the USA
    • Yeah, but it's a $10 screwdriver that doesn't stick to a working palette, and comes with sharp edges that cut the cosmonauts when they're grabbing for it in zero grav and leaves rust stains all over the place. The LED never worked, and the rack-mounting bolt only has a 30lb tolerance instead of 1000lbs, so all the equipment starts flying around the cockpit at launch.

  • Major Laggg On Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)

    by preferred_nick ( 136626 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:07PM (#8834656)
    I got this news from my 88 year old Grandmother today before it was posted on Slashdot. Oh well so much for getting the tech news fast on a holiday weekend.
    • Slashdot is a very funny creature indeed.

      Stories that have been rejected the first time over are often accepted later on, and appear on the page.

      For instance, this particularly story I submitted at Sunday April 11, @05:54AM. It got shortly rejected after. I imagine a couple factors come into play:

      1. CmdrTaco was posting stories on Slashdot around the time I submitted the story. On the other hand, this story was accepted and scheduled by Timothy. I'm sure different editors deem different stories impo

  • Viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jay-oh-eee! ( 750468 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:08PM (#8834663) Homepage
    It's funny, the Russians say it'll take $6.5 billion, privately funded, officials say it's impossible on such a budget. The Bush administration says it'll take $12 billion over five years, without setting a definitive timeline for a mission. "Experts" say it'll take upwards of a TRILLION $ and suspect it to happen, at the soonest, a decade. Everyone is just speculating, estimating and without any real plan or budget.
    Sounds simplistic but what happens if we just split the bill?

    • Re:Viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)

      by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:25PM (#8834779) Journal
      When the "experts" talk about the upwards of 1 Trillion, they probably (and perhaps rightly so) are taking into account the massive amounts of pork-barreling it will take to grease the wheels for the duration of the time it will take to plan, build, launch, and recover the mission. All it takes is a few assholes to make some sort of fuss over jobs, environmental impact, better uses for the money, etc. and WHAM, everything slams to a halt. They (meaning the politicians who are potential wrenches in the gears) know this, and so do the people doing the planning. Thus the 1 Trillion has to include the payola to these individuals to let the Mars mission alone.

      At least... that's my theory. Whether it's maliciously deliberate or not, these individuals (who move in and out of the halls of power on revolving doors) can make everything grind to a halt. For the government to do anything on this scale requires that they keep these bozos happy and well away from the space program. All it takes is an election year, and you can see what happens if a challenger decides to take his (or her) axe to the incumbent's supported programs.

      Contrast this to a private endeavor, where if the space mission fails, the company fails (or at least, is greatly diminished.) There is little incentive to burn money on stupid arguments, and great incentive to make it work the first time around. Can it be done in 6.5 billion? Given that the Russians still have the infrastructure to do this sort of thing, and that for pork-barrel politics we'd end up having to build such a thing from scratch (to spread the work around to enough congressional districts), that's one big cost that they can avoid. However, I have to say, this group's mission description (fly 6 men to the surface of Mars, funded in part by a reality program) sounds a bit fly-by-night to me.

      The earlier Russian proposal (put a station in Mars orbit and teleoperate robot probes/construction equipment from there) sounds like the one that is most likely to succeed. Fewer problems with having to enter/escape a gravity well, not having to deal with all the damn dust, and ease of construction (just put more modules up.)

    • Re:Viewpoint (Score:5, Funny)

      by dj245 ( 732906 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:25PM (#8834789) Homepage
      Sounds simplistic but what happens if we just split the bill?

      Same thing that happens in the restaurant every Easter. Russia will offer to pay half, knowing full well that USA will want to pay most of it to be the "good guy", and having no intention of paying any of it. Russia will then make a playful attempt to snatch the bill off the table, at which point USA will poke Russia with a car key, forcing Russia to drop the bill. Russia will then give up its ambitions on the ISS (oops Mars) and then USA will pay for everything.

    • Sounds simplistic but what happens if we just split the bill?

      'cause the whole point of these missions is to stoke the fires of nationalism. The Bush administration has done its best to rm international-* , and since when has prudence had anything to do with it?

  • I can do the same (Score:5, Funny)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:08PM (#8834666) Homepage
    I'll send them up for 4 years, with a stop on the moon thrown in as a bonus, only for $2 billion. I'd like my money in advance in gold nuggets in unmarked bags please.

  • The Tribe has spoken... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:09PM (#8834675)
    You have been voted off the crew. It's time to say goodbye and enter the airlock.
    • Airlock? I'd expect that the rest of the "tribe" would like to have a bit of fresh red meat on their dinner plates instead of the veggies that they've been having for the past 3 months.

  • The ways they plan to cut costs: (Score:4, Funny)

    by rasafras ( 637995 ) <tamas.pha@jhu@edu> on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:12PM (#8834691) Homepage
    1) The first stage will be comprised of the entire population standing on each other's shoulders. Distance: 176,000 miles.
    2) Thrust for the second stage will be provided by shaken up coke cans. Stick it to those capitalist swine.
    3) Remaining thrust will be provided by removing the vacuum tubes from the flight computer and throwing them behind the ship.
    4) The return journey... uhh... screw it, let's invade a neighboring country!

    In all honesty, I wish the Russians had the American budget. They have proven their worth more than once in innovation, and it's a shame they can no longer afford it.

    • Re:The ways they plan to cut costs: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cornjones ( 33009 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:20PM (#8835088) Homepage
      In all honesty, I wish the Russians had the American budget. They have proven their worth more than once in innovation, and it's a shame they can no longer afford it.

      The russians prove their ingenuity b/c they have to or they don't get it done b/c they don't have the budget. THey have to figure other ways to do things. When I was first entering the workforce, it seemed as if all the russians produced really good tight code. We later realized why, you have to be efficient if your equipment is obsolete. Nothing bad here, just an observation

  • Okay (Score:2)

    by mcc ( 14761 )
    And does the russian space program have $3.5 billion? Last I checked they weren't even able to pay for the space missions they're doing already, and their contributions to the ISS were finished with NASA's money.

    I mean, it isn't like I've been paying *that* much attention, but still, they don't seem to be doing great over there.

    • Re:Okay (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mdalek ( 702460 )
      And does the russian space program have $3.5 billion?

      RTFA
      Its clearly stated that this is private money and is not a Russian space program project.
  • "They plan to have 6 people explore Mars for months before returning to Earth. The Mission would take 3 years, and would depend on fully equipped spacecraft containing its own garden, medical facilities etc."

    So sending 6 people there and bringing them back. Ok, so you got a space craft loaded with a garden, a medical facility, and a way of getting there and back. What they don't tell you is the people are expected to die about 2 months into the jouney, and the exploration on Mars will be done by bots. A

  • possible reality TV shows (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zabu ( 589690 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:17PM (#8834731)
    "Who wants to mate with a martian"
    "The Red World"
    "Space Rules"
    "Last Cosmanaut Standing"
    "Inter-Planetary Idol"
    "Paradise Planet"
    and last but not least "Stupid"

  • redundancy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by peeledback ( 649168 )
    3 years? maybe they should send more than one ship. each having enough on board to support the other if a failure happens. it wouldn't be to much fun having an electric failure millions of miles from no where. the aaa takes long enough on earth!
  • Sounds like Red Thunder [amazon.com] with real reds.

    (Or do we not call russkis reds anymore? I lose track...)
  • It was 10 days ago sheesh.

  • Stake your claim! (Score:3, Informative)

    by BorkBorkBork6000 ( 769812 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:31PM (#8834823)
    I suppose this group will become the first to claim land for itself on Mars. They can't claim it as an appropriation by claim of sovereignty for Russia, but if it's a private mission they should be able to claim it for themselves, or Fox-Media-Rocket-Corp or whoever.

    The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space [umn.edu] says nothing about non-state missions, unfortunately. I'm not even sure the rules apply to entities not parties to the treaty.

    Is there a doctor of law in the building?

  • Mars for Real (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skywolf ( 757605 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:32PM (#8834828)
    Do I believe that going to Mars could be done for 3.5 billion, leaving in four years time? Not yet. What we really need is cheap and reliable space access. When this is achieved, everything space-related will surely become an order of magnitude cheaper.

    The only thing that I like about this article is the notion that a voyage to Mars could be made into a reality TV show. Because that's what it should be.

    Space exploration is exactly that - exploration, and not science. Every time I turn on the news, I hear of a group that's trying to mountain-bike to the pole, or walk to the pole unsupported, or hot-air balloon to the pole, or walk there backwards. It's so futile it makes me weep.

    I believe that exploration is a human need, important to us even when it serves no tangible purpose. Leave the poles to the Scientists. It's time to head for Mars!

  • The Energia-Buran Rocket can get to Mars (Score:5, Informative)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:37PM (#8834860) Homepage
    I remember seeing a documentary when I was a child that said that the Soviet (this was coldwar times) Energia-Vulkan rocket could power a mission all the way to mars and back. Apparently Energia Vulkan was scrapped for Energia Buran (the launch rocket for the now defunct Russian shuttle), but Energia Vulkan's design is an Energia Buran with a total of 8 boosters . . . Apparently its not that different from from the Energia Buran (built to launch the now defunct Russian shuttle). A few details here [k26.com]
    • Great idea. But the real question is do they have the same problem that we have?
      We no longer can launch a saturn V. Nixon killed that capability, and all the other presidents allowed our engineers from that era to go to waste.

      Sadly, we will have to re-engineer our group to get to that launch capacity again, let alone past it.

      • Relative costs (Score:3, Informative)

        by Latent Heat ( 558884 )
        I keep wondering about a number of what-ifs.

        The Russians had the N-1 moon rocket, which they did not brag about because they blew it up 3 or 4 times and never could get it to work.

        One of the beauties of "capitalism" was once the government came up with a Moon program (Apollo, Saturn, lunar-orbit rendezvous), they stuck with it and threw money at it until it happened. One of the ironies of centrally-planned "communism" is that weren't sure if they were even in a race to the Moon, and when it was decided

  • Is this a new space race I smell? Things like this can ONLY be healthy for the space program. American pride will now be greatly hurt if Russia beats them to Mars. Personally, I feel like cooking some popcorn and taking a decade to eat it.
  • I say quite sending ppl to planet and then bringing them back. Send them there one-way. If this was a one-way mission, you can bet that they would find a way to survive. In addition, they would pave the way for a real base.

  • Not too far fetched. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Johnathon_Dough ( 719310 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:43PM (#8834891)
    All it is going to take, is some one with the money who is willing to take the chance with the health & safety risks that any major government will never take.

    If some group had a ship going to mars, how many people would line up to go? How many scientists would be willing to sacrifice their health and safety to be one of the first to set foot on and study another planet?

    Simply by being held accountable by the government and the people, NASA is never going to be able to say "Well, this ship will get you there, but we can't guarantee that you will live to make it, and we can't guarantee that you won't get cancer by the time you get back. But hey, you get to go to Mars!"

    Where as, a private firm only has to have a lawyer draw up a suitably impressive release of liability, and start charging for tickets.

    More power to them, I hope they make it. It will push those damn lolly-gaggers in our over managed space program to actually acheive something instead of throwing money at quadrupal fail-safe indestructible toilet seats.

  • So it seems... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Comatose51 ( 687974 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @10:45PM (#8834902) Homepage
    ...a project it said would cost only $3.5 billion

    So it seems that the Russians have discovered out-sourcing to India as well.

  • Reality show, eh..... (Score:3, Funny)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:08PM (#8835022) Homepage
    Low-cost mars mission.....
    Low-cost technology.....
    Unproven Russian technology....
    plus a reality show...

    Could we plllleeeease send Donald Trump... and Ryan Seacrest and have the first 'good' space disaster*?

    *The only exception being Appolo 13 which was a "good disaster". Tons of stuff went wrong and the mission was a failure. However, nobody got hurt, and the whole ordeal proved twice-over the quality of American engineering and ingenuity.

  • You knew this was coming... (Score:3, Funny)

    by opec ( 755488 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:09PM (#8835028) Homepage
    In Soviet Russia... The project funds you.

  • Running the numbers (Score:5, Informative)

    by WombatControl ( 74685 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:16PM (#8835065)

    Assuming that this group uses a Proton launcher (the heavy Russian launcher currently used to lift ISS sections and Soyuz spacecraft) they would only be able to lift 44,000 lbs into LEO per launch.

    The likely weight for a fully-fueled Mars base would be in the neighborhood of 1 million pounds - and that's being conservative. You not only need the habitation modules, but the garden modules, consumables for three years, and propellant. 2 million might be closer.

    That's about 23 launches to just to get all the material in LEO.

    A Proton launch costs about $35-$70 million dollars.

    That's $1.14 billion, just to get everything into LEO. Even then, that's a conservative estimate. The real costs, depending on weight could be close to $3 billion.

    That doesn't include the hundreds of millions in R&D needed to develop a working spacecraft, training for astronauts, keeping a working command and control center for 3 years, insurance, legal fees, or any of the other costs.

    In short, this doesn't even pass the smell test.

    • Re:Running the numbers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lommer ( 566164 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @02:35AM (#8835918)
      Three things:

      First off, your assumption that they will use Proton rockets may be wrong - they may use a reconstructed Russian variant of a Saturn V, and launch everything in one or two trips. There's another post on this article that suggests alternatives to the Proton.

      Secondly, I don't trust many numbers thrown around on /. without a reference, and that 1 million pounds for an expedition definitely sounds like a number out of thin air. Without looking at their designs, it's really impossible to speculate on the final weight/mass of the vehicle.

      Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why go into orbit to assemble your vehicle? Why not launch it pre-assembled on a big-ass rocket (see pt. 1) and go straight for mars or whatever bodies you're using for a gravity assist trajectory? Going into orbit uses a lot of energy, and I really don't see the need for it. A lot of sci-fi involves orbital assemblies, but when you do the math it's not actually that practical...

      All that being said however, I agree that I can't see this mission flying. It reeks of overly optimistic budgeting designed to secure enough venture capital to get some executives a fun, well paying job for a few years before the project dies in a sea of red ink.

  • So, uh, do they plan on getting them back? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by misleb ( 129952 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @11:43PM (#8835207)
    You know, I love hearing about all these crazy plans to go to Mars, but it seems like very few people actually plan for the return trip. I assume they plan on getting these astronauts back. Visiting mars isn't like visiting the moon. They'll need to construct facilities to launch a return vehicle (and manufacture fuel, etc) That would be a pretty major undertaking. Maininging basic life support will be challenging enough...

    -matthew

  • Biosphere 3? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @12:12AM (#8835373) Homepage
    A ship with its own garden? 3 years? I assume that they want to create a somewhat sustainable ecosystem . . . We couldn't even get that right on Earth . . . see biosphere 2 [wikipedia.org] This sounds more than a little idealistic . . .

  • Russia? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @12:48AM (#8835527)
    Russia's space history is impressive in some areas, but not Mars. I don't think I'd sign up to be an astronaut for this mission when Russia hasn't landed anything on the surface, and most of the orbital probes have failed. The Martian Defense Network takes a toll on everyone, but seems to take special delight in shooting down Russian craft.

  • Backer? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @03:33AM (#8836056) Journal
    I doubt that this company really has the financial backing to do this. But upon thinking about it, I suspect that they do. Russia has proven that they can get us there (good rockets) and survive in space (1.5 years vs american 6 months). I am guessing that this group has an American backer who believes in getting us off this rock, but with a real plan. Is there anybody who has been backing space programs? anybody who has backed the X-prize as well as the group who was the front-runner from the gitgo? anybody who fits in the top 10 richest ppl in the world?

    I suspect that Paul is backing these guys. This is the same guy who bet on a small software start-up, moved into a new industry called internet over cable ( he started in 1992, before others were even thinking of it), and now backs Burt Rutan for the X-prize. In addition, he is backing seti, and had monorail ran through his rock muesum. Quit a few accomplishments.

  • April 12 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by danila ( 69889 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @04:24AM (#8836151) Homepage
    Those of you interested in the reality TV from space might want to check out Spacestation [imax.com], an IMAX 3D film about the ISS. It was made two years ago, but is premiered in Russia today, on April 12.

    BTW, April 12 is the Cosmonautics Day. 43 years ago Yury [peoples.ru] Gagarin [k12.ak.us] became a first human ever to fly to space. BTW, during the 43 years that followed, 431 humans have been up there. Think of it, only 10 people per year on average...

    Nobody in the US (or in the world for that matter) expected the Soviet space triumth of the 1961. Nobody expects these Russians to pull off their Mars trip. But one thing is for certain - the only way to find the limits of possible is to venture beyond them, into the impossible. Good luck to those trying!

  • Zubrin.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @05:33AM (#8836284) Journal
    Zubrin has said before that the $trillion price-tags for a mars mission were wildly overinflated, and suggests a way that it can be done for around $20 billion/mission.

    Off the rop of my head, each Soyuz mission costs Russia about $60 million - compare that to the $500 million/shuttle-mission cost ("cheap reusable"), or the sky high costs proposed for the possible replacements..

    So yes, I think it could be possible that the Russians could do it all for a few $Billion - they dont mind taking a few more risks too. Whether these particular people are the right people to do it - that is another issue - a few Billion is still a lot of doe to hand over to someone.

    As for the USA, I say if they dont want to give the money to Russia, let people like Rutan have some & see what comes out of it.

    NASA seem to have lost the ability to effectively stage such a project, at least at an affordable cost. The whole question arises as to whether government agencys are the best way to exploit a technology, once it has reached a certain level of maturity. Zubrin wrote an excellent article comparing NASA productivity 61-73 (Apollo motivated) vs the Shuttle years - NASA were so much more productive, for much the same cash when focused on Apollo..

  • April Fool's joke !? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by uss_valiant ( 760602 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @06:26AM (#8836383) Homepage
    About the same story was on telepolis (German online magazine) on April 1st 2004 ("Europa und Russland starten 2009 erste bemannte Mars-Expedition" (German) [heise.de] (Europe and Russia launch the first manned expedition to Mars in 2009)). The article on telepolis was obviously a joke and I guess this story also.

  • Reuse what lander? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scattol ( 577179 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @07:03AM (#8836437)
    Ok so maybe they have boosters and capsules in production they can reuse and save engineering costs. But which lander would they be reusing?

    I don't remember any hardware other than the LEM that could land humans. So the lander they have to engineer pretty much from scratch. It's not a small bit of hardware either. On it's own wouldn't that use their entire budget?

  • Survivor: Mars! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mr_Clayhead ( 770543 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @09:09AM (#8836819)
    Why not mix the popularity of the reality show "Survivor" with the hazards-be-damned attitude of the Russian space industry? Each week, someone gets voted off the spaceship, and FOOMP! Out the airlock they go.

  • probably can do it cheaper than NASA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @10:54AM (#8837509)
    NASA has many conflicting goals, a big bureaucracy, a risk-adverse culture. The Russian, Chinese, or private enterprise approach may be able to do this more cost-effectively than NASA, though probably not for as little as $3.5 billion.

    I prefer the "evolutionary" private enterprise approach like as in the current x space contest. Start out with doable million dollar increments of financing and goals.

  • The best Russian Mars Mission ever (Score:5, Funny)

    by Myrmidon ( 649 ) on Monday April 12, 2004 @12:21PM (#8838349)
    I laugh at these guys' pathetic plan. My team has come up with my very own Russian Mars Mission plan, after listening very carefully to some guys in tinfoil hats. (People laugh at tinfoil hats, but compared to many Mars mission advocates these guys sound pretty reasonable.)

    Plan is simple: fake a trip to Mars. People thought was possible back in 1969, but now we know is possible -- digital effects technology has come long way. I mean, with $3 billion we could pay animators to hand-craft every pixel of footage. It will look totally believeable.

    Fake trip to Mars solves all major problems with human space flight [slashdot.org]:

    • Nobody dies.
    • Saves lot of money.
    • No damage to Martian environment and no contamination of Martian life (if there is any).
    • All excitement that Sci-Fi fans could ever want. In fact, exploration of Mars might turn out to be exactly like the novel - no matter which novel you prefer! We can put Valentine Michael Smith up there if you like!


    Problems:
    • What if spoilsports at JPL or NORAD use their radars and determine there is no spaceship out there? Well, that's where Russian angle comes in. We simply insist that there really is spaceship... and that JPL and NORAD guys are just issuing disinformation, in order to cover up embarrassing superiority of Russian space technology. (Hey, if this argument works for ESP and cold fusion...)
    • What if people insist on getting interesting scientific information back from manned Mars trip? Well... they just won't. Nobody ever talks about data from Moon missions. Instead they rhapsodize about pictures of Aldrin and Armstrong and world's most expensive golf cart. If people insist on "scientific data", we will quietly steal photos from Spirit rover web site and Photoshop in a cosmonaut or two.
    • What about people who want to colonize Mars in order to experience glorious new frontier? Won't they demand seats on our ship?

      Well, for morality's sake, our first duty is to lecture these people sternly about what idiots they are. When this doesn't work, we can sell them seats in Mars Settlement Simulator. This is big airtight tin can containing 1000 switches and 1000 tins of Spam. Every day, "passengers" are required to flip a switch... otherwise can explodes. If passengers run out of Spam, they die of starvation. One of the switches is secretly wired to shut off can's air supply... when it is switched, passengers unexpectedly die of asphyxiation. If passengers make it through 800 days, we open up can to reveal Gobi Desert, where they are free to wander around until they get bored and decide to go home.

      I figure we can get $1M each for these seats -- after all, they are very good simulation of real trip! But passengers may get mad because they don't get weightlessness for their money. Such passengers will be airlifted to secret Russian base at Sanduski [cedarpoint.com] where they can ride Weightlessness Simulators until they pass out.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Close