Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011 376
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."
Well... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Oh wait...
Pevo! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Pevo! (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sweet (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
"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
Re:Sweet (Score:2)
Re:Sweet (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
I'm gonna get there in THREE years and stay for 17 months and only need a taxi and a Swiss Army Knife!!
Just not credible (Score:5, Funny)
Dont forget your towel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ooh!! (Score:5, Funny)
Funded by Reality TV? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Funded by Reality TV? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Funded by Reality TV? (Score:5, Funny)
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. In space, nobody can hear you plagerize overused movie quotes.
Re:Funded by Reality TV? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah you sound cynical now, but if Stan the blue eyed blond haired hunk were to double over due to stomach pain, you'd be on the edge of your seat.
What if they're right? (Score:5, Interesting)
But
So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if they're right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Step 4: Watch as someone ELSE
Blast. No pun intended.
Re:What if they're right? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What if they're right? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, we can ask whats gonna happen when SpaceShipOne hits 60 miles up later this year.
Re:What if they're right? (Score:5, Interesting)
All they need is:
big-ass rocket
decent size living area
lots of food (garden)
a doctor as part of the crew
a crew that accepts the (very substantial) risk
a return craft
If they don't test things overly much then they shouldn't have too much of a problem getting that for $3.5 Billion.
No one else is willing to risk 6 lives that recklessly, hence they pay a lot more.
TW
Re:WARNING: Internal inconsistancy detected! (Score:3, Insightful)
safe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:safe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:safe? (Score:2)
Re:safe? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:safe? (Score:2, Informative)
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)
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)
Money shmoney (Score:4, Funny)
Mars, a pipe dream (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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...
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone who's seen bacterial cultures battling it out knows that watching grass grow is comparatively rivetting.
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Mars is not.
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:2)
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.
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:Mars, a pipe dream (Score:3, Insightful)
number four... who gives a sh**, our destiny is to colinate and grow as a succesfull species, at the expense of dead, and/or near-dead planets. Our expansiona and colonization, and security by not putting all our eggs in one basket (earth).. is far more important than any stinking microbes on mars...
That sounds fine, until a colony ship of some advanced civilisation shows up on our doorstep, ready to "terra"form our planet. Just need to get rid of 6 billion microbes first...
And while you may be conte
Served! It's On! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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
Re:Quite possible, because... (Score:3, Insightful)
Major Laggg On Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Major Laggg On Slashdot (Score:2, Interesting)
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:
Viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds simplistic but what happens if we just split the bill?
Re:Viewpoint (Score:4, Interesting)
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, Informative)
Re:Viewpoint (Score:2)
So people who care about jobs and the environment are bozos now?
Re:Viewpoint (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Viewpoint (Score:2)
'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)
The Tribe has spoken... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Tribe has spoken... (Score:2, Funny)
The ways they plan to cut costs: (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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
Re:The ways they plan to cut costs: (Score:5, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, the Russians have made some great hardware - the Soyuz is an amazing capsule. And their liquid-fuel engines are generally much, much better than ours (note that the EELV Atlas uses a Russian-built engine). But their experience with launches headed out of Earth's gravity well is no better, and arguably worse, than that of the US.
Really, in the end, a joint effort is the only thing that would make any sense, but with Bush in office, that is (to say the least) unlikely.
Okay (Score:2)
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)
RTFA
Its clearly stated that this is private money and is not a Russian space program project.
Read between the lines... (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
"The Red World"
"Space Rules"
"Last Cosmanaut Standing"
"Inter-Planetary Idol"
"Paradise Planet"
and last but not least "Stupid"
redundancy (Score:2, Insightful)
John Varley is writing press releases now? (Score:2)
(Or do we not call russkis reds anymore? I lose track...)
Delayed post? (Score:2)
Stake your claim! (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
Re:The Energia-Buran Rocket can get to Mars (Score:2)
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)
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
*sniff sniff* (Score:2, Funny)
Hopefully, they will change plans (Score:2)
Not too far fetched. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not too far fetched. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the worry is "We might be blamed if they don't come back."
Which is even stupider if the people voluntarily going somewhere dangerous know what they are getting into...
So it seems... (Score:5, Funny)
So it seems that the Russians have discovered out-sourcing to India as well.
Reality show, eh..... (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Running the numbers (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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
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)
-matthew
Why bring them back? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tim
Biosphere 3? (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Backer? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
Reuse what lander? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
probably can do it cheaper than NASA (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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]:
Problems:
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.
Re:crazy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
America puts safety first in high risk operations these days. the 'flying by the seat of your pants' days of the space race are over. there is too much public pressure for NASA to make any mistakes, so anything with too much risk is out of the question. how in the world will America be able to accomplish such a risky operation like going to Mars with all this public pressure?
However, Russia is the perfect candidate (and always has been) for testing extremely high risk equipment and/or situations. why? because although Russia thinks about safety, it's not the number one concern; the number one concern is success.
when Russia loses a cosmonaut in some accident, they don't halt their space program for years at a time for a complete investigation. they theorize what the problem could be, make adjustments and press on.
If the world really wants to put a human on planet Mars in the next 20 years, the best idea would be for the world (including USA) to fund Russia to accomplish such a mission. I guarentee they will do it for the smallest amount of money and in the shortest amount of time.
Re:crazy (Score:5, Funny)
Of course it is nonsense... the russians barely have enough money to keep the country afloat, let alone spend on a manned trip to Mars.
Well, the company funding the project did say it "draws no resources from the state budget." This appears to be a completely privately funded operation.
Still ludicrous, though, considering the technical and logistical challenges. Although I do like the reality TV angle...who wants to start betting on which cosmonaut takes the first shot of vodka in the Mars atmosphere?
Re:crazy (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes no sense. By this logic, it would be better to tax at 100%, because any money in private hands is obviously flushing it down the toilet right? Now we can argue that the richest Americans do not need a tax cut, I would argue that you can give them a rate cut as long as you threw out 98% of the tax code, so there were no deductions (except for personal