Russia Wants to Launch Manned Mission to Mars

Raul654 writes "The Maimi Herald, via the Associated Press, is reporting that Russia wants to launch a manned mission to mars. The article says that the Russians are hoping to work closely with the European Space Agency and/or NASA. The 6 person, 440 day trip would cost around $20 billion. Should be interesting to see how this shapes up. See also here for mirror article."

Comments

Excellent!

[Servo]

This could be the boost to get NASA off its duff and on to Mars. The "space race" got us to the Moon, because we wanted to beat the Russians. I think this is just what we need.. some "friendly" competition.

Re:Excellent!

[Raul654]

I see it differently. This is going to cost a lot of $, and really none of the space agencies can afford to go it alone. I think this is going to be a boon for international cooperation in the field. Until they have to decide who actually sets foot on mars first.

Re:Excellent!

[ceejayoz]

Maybe they'll spend an extra couple billion and have six ladders for everyone to step off at the same time.

"Three... two... HEY! BORIS! Damnit, that's not fair!"

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they want to work with the Americans. This is why we need anti-trust laws in space: to keep competition going.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. All we need now is for Bin Laden to announce Al Qaeda's upcoming mission to Mars.

Re:Excellent!

[Keiran Halcyon]

It's not necessarily a big money loss. When NASA first threw everything they had at going into space, the creativity boom was something we've benefitted from for years. Ever use velcro? It came about because of NASA.

Rockets became highly feasable because they HAD to. NASA had to be able to do something quickly and easily (in terms of their own abilities) because it was necessary at the time. Who knows what kind of advancements will come from this?

Maybe NASA will develop a more efficient fuel-cell based power system because it's obviously just not sound to power everything by solar cells.

Friendly competition as you put it, not only fuels action, it also fuels the imagination. Look at JunkYard Wars for example. These people aren't highly trained to do exactly what they're doing for the most part, yet they manage it nine times out of ten. Imagine what will happen if several professional agencies sit down and start working together on something as important as this.

Re:Excellent!

[twisted_pickle]

This could be the boost to get NASA off its duff and on to Mars. The "space race" got us to the Moon, because we wanted to beat the Russians. I think this is just what we need.. some "friendly" competition.

What I think NASA needs is a reason to go to Mars that will produce something tangible, rather than just winning a spitting contest with Russia.

Take, for example, our getting to the moon first. Yes, it was quite a feat of engineering and otherwise. But we haven't gone back since. There's not much point in going back if we're going just for fun. We'd probably be a little more enthusiastic about getting to Mars if we could mine it, or do something useful with it besides just land on it.

Re:Excellent!

[cheebie]

> It's not necessarily a big money loss. When NASA
>first threw everything they had at going into space,
>the creativity boom was something we've benefitted
>from for years. Ever use velcro? It came about
>because of NASA.

Whenever the benefits of the Apollo program are listed, it's always stuff like Velcro, Teflon, and Tang. Well, how about adding every piece of electronics on the planet? The Apollo program was a major driver in the miniaturization of electronics. It started Moore's Law!

Re:Excellent!

[mesocyclone]

NASA has been using fuel cells since the Apollo project, so they are unlikely to make any new major advances in that area.

However, it is true that the space race and the ICBM race resulted in tremendous leaps in technology. It is hard to say what would have happened without that investment, but my guess is that the technological leaps would have taken longer.

But NASA is no longer the hard driven organization that it was in the moon race. It has developed too many of the characteristics of other government bureaucracies, in spite of the fact that is has a lot of really smart people on its staff.

NASA fell into the space shuttle trap as the only way to justify its existence. The result is an absurdly expensive launch system (and for many years, a total prohibition on competition). Then they justified the ISS on pretty much bogus grounds... the microgravity research is unlikely to be worth the many dozens of billions of dollars going into it.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA's deficiencies have less to do with the majority of the department than with their appointed leadership. As for Alpha, the DoD has wasted more on credit card fraud than it will cost.

Re:Excellent!

[Peahippo]

You have made the unwarranted assumption that due to NASA's need or involvement, the item (fuel cell, velcro) is developed, and could only have been developed in that way. Fuel cells and velcro have many civilian and non-aerospace uses, and there are many pushes and pulls in those arenas to develop products.

If we happen to chance upon some good technologies when investing in space technology, then fine. But don't lead me to believe that we need to fund NASA just for that purpose.

Re:Excellent!

[iamblades]

Tang wasn't a product of the space program though, it was only made more popular because of the press it recieved because of it.

Tang was around since the late 50s IIRC..

Re:Excellent!

[iamblades]

NASA was never as efficient as it could be. Back during the space race the government could throw more money to them without jeopardizing their positions though. The Shuttle launches are still really expensive, but it's an incredible improvement over the saturn rockets. Thats all the shuttle was meant to be, a step towards cheaper and cheaper space travel.

IMO, the only difference between NASA then and now is the money they recieve..

Re:Excellent!

[flacco]

It's not necessarily a big money loss. When NASA first threw everything they had at going into space, the creativity boom was something we've benefitted from for years. Ever use velcro? It came about because of NASA.

Gee, and all it took was a multi-billion dollar space program to get velcro?

The space program is nice, but that argument has always bothered me. If there is a need for something in the marketplace, usually supply and demand are better arbiters of whether or not a producct comes into existence.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Velcro isn't a result of NASA. A Frenchman, witnessing burrs for the umpteenth time, had an epiphany and pursued it. No NASA. Never. Nada.

Re:Excellent!

[shd99004]

Yes indeed. I hope that Russia, ESA, NASA and the others have gained a lot of experience from huge international projects after building the ISS. It took a while but finally it's there. I think that this next big international project will gain from this. Also, it would boost the public interest in space exploration to new heights, I'm sure.

Re:Excellent!

[mselmeci]

We'd probably be doing a lot more with the moon had we the budget... in any case, I hope this starts a trend.

Re:Excellent!

[cyberconte]

Like live on it, maybe?

Granted, it would be a several-centrury task at the very least, but all this observation on mars has had the overtones of "how much like earth is it" and "can it sustain life" and "is there life there already?". The idea is that at some point in our existance, we may want or need to inhabit the planet - which would involve atmospheric adjustment and the addition of foliage.

But before that, we have to get there. This is a step in the right direction!

Re:Excellent!

[sydsavage]

Tang was around since the late 50s IIRC..

I think 'tang has been around a bit longer than that. Oh... you meant the beverage... nevermind.

Re:Excellent!

[Cerrian]

Then they justified the ISS on pretty much bogus grounds... the microgravity research is unlikely to be worth the many dozens of billions of dollars going into it.

I'm not sure what kind of microgravity research they were planning on, but IMO, the real payoff will come with the research and experience gained from the construction of structures and materials in hostile microgravity environments (low earth orbit). Research in the physics or biology fields are great and everthing, but I don't think they're going to be the fields that a new space era for us. With the right techniques and plenty of experience we could make the cost of microgravity structures plummet.

Re:Excellent!

[Rolo Tomasi]

Velcro was patented in 1955. NASA was founded in 1958. NASA didn't invent everything. In fact, I can't think of anything they invented. Or wait, there was this ball pen that worked in zero g ... Typically, space missions use rather old technology, because everything has to be tested so thoroughly that in the meantime the state of the art has advanced significantly.

Re:Excellent!

[Rolo Tomasi]

NASA didn't invent Teflon. Teflon was invented by a guy at DuPont in the 1930s. Neither did NASA invent Velcro (see my other post below). Where do you guys get these ideas? "Uh, it seems smart and useful and stuff, so NASA must've invented it."

And no, NASA wasn't the reason why electronics are so small either. You don't need a lot of computer power for space flights. The Shuttle uses 8086s, remember?

Re:Excellent!

[sffubs]

Hasn't the ESS been the most almighty cock-up, costing 3 times its initial budget, and unable to take more than a couple of crew members? American/Russian 'co-operation' has led to the US having to carry Russia through this project, and has contributed a fair amount to NASA's current financial problems.

I think all three space agencies ought to think long and hard about how they are going to cooperate effectively to create a successful, well budgeted mission, rather than just jumping in as they did with the ISS.

-s

Re:Excellent!

[karm13]

in german article about this yesterday, a read that only three would actually land on mars.

imagine, travelling all the way, being in outer space in a tin can for eight months, and then one half has to stay in orbit, watch the others make history, have all the fun, and then listen to their stories about it all the way back...

- "that was _so cool_! you have to try it for yourselves some day... i wish i could do it _again_!"

Re:Excellent!

[bsane]

You don't need a lot of computer power for space flights.

This is true, but you need more computing power than discrete transistors can provide with the weight/size/heat requirements. Integrated circuits were a necessity for the Apollo mission. Who knows how long it would have take for that extremely important advance if it wasn't for NASA and the Apollo mission.

Re:Excellent!

[bsane]

I don't have the numbers to back me up on this, but I've heard that the total cost of resources per flight is higher with the shuttle than it would be with disposible rockets. One piece of that is the fact that they need to be re-tiled periodically and that each individual tile is unique and must be duplicated by hand.

The saturn rockets are a special case since they are powerful enough to orbit the moon and return.

Re:Excellent!

[isorox]

Wernet IC's inventerd in the late 40's?

Re:Excellent!

[SEWilco]

Well, keep in mind that at that time "integrated circuit" meant one logical gate (AND, OR, XOR..etc) on a chip, having 5-15 electronic components (only 1-5 being transistors). It was wonderful a few years later when the high-density chips became available, with 4-8 logical gates.

Re:Excellent!

[SEWilco]

The Saturn V, the Apollo rocket, was not reusable and did not "return" from the Moon. Only the upper thrust stage reached orbit and was used to leave Earth orbit toward the Moon. The upper stage remained attached until the LEM had been extracted, then was abandoned.

Some of these stages probably went into unknown solar orbit -- astronomers recently spotted an object which might be an Apollo component. Later flights often aimed it at the Moon so the crash could be examined by seismometers left behind by earlier flights.

The only things which returned from the Moon were the Command and the Service Modules, but those were more payload than Saturn V stages. (Well, Apollo 13 also returned with the LEM...) Of course, only the conical Command Module actually survived reentry.

Re:Excellent!

[SEWilco]

"This is going to cost a lot of $..."

For only $1 Billion, you can buy a ride 5% of the way to Mars!

Re:Excellent!

[Tar-Palantir]

Ever seen Rocket Man? ... It wasn't me!

Re:Excellent!

[bsane]

Thats really what I meant: send and return the payload from the moon. It's much more than the space shuttle could ever do.

Re:Excellent!

[Tarazis]

Of course it's gona cost billions ("they" think about $20B) were going to Mars, not down to the shops. But if anything is worth doing then it's worth doing right. And the cost will be spread over 4 agencies NASA, ESA, the Russians and the japaneese (I hope i've spelt that right). But beside's the whole velcro thing (didn't the space program invent anything else?) going into space and exploring the universe around us will have untold advantages, for example: 1. we could see if there is anything in the big crack. (like Arni gasping for air please god) 2. it could be a new vecation spot, Mars on E50 a day! (offer subject to terms and conditions) 3. we have more of a chance of not letting exploration be decided by public opnion (example: the moon!). It just seems to me that it's not technology that's stopping us doing these things but money pinchers and doomsayers. "Why do we have to do this?" and other such whine comments realy get on my nerves. Where would america be if columus had given up when he hit the first hurdle? Also vastly more important, this is one tiny planet and the resorces we have here are GOING TO RUN OUT. so why not do some survaying and see exactly what's out there and use that to help us back here. It would also be cheeper in the long run if we start doing it now at our own pace instead of having to rush it and it costing the Earth (Absolutly every pun imaginable intended) But this is the most important thing; I want to retire to the moon. and that the first place we will have to set up on.

Re:Excellent!

[tsa]

Hey, here in Holland we're going to spend E 20G on a useless railroad and a far too expensive Joint Strike fighter. Why not spend this money on something more useful? This trip to Mars is a better project than the ones we spend this money on now, if only for the spin-off technology.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever use velcro? It came about because of NASA

Sure, ask families of the astronauts who burned up on the pad what they think of Velcro. Besides, NASA didn't invent it, they just found a use for it.

Re:Excellent!

[Tablizer]

(* Whenever the benefits of the Apollo program are listed, it's always stuff like Velcro, Teflon, and Tang. *)

Reminds me of Wonderbug episodes from 80's Saturday mornings.

"I have a plan to get those crooks. But, to pull if off we will need Velcro, Telfon, Tang, and some dental floss."

BTW, is there a website that describes and debunks "moonshot inventions"?

BTW2, What is so great about Tang? Nothing but sugar-water with vitimin C.

Re:Excellent!

[SEWilco]

Well, yes. The Saturn V was amazing. Until those monster engines were created nobody expected to reach the Moon with a single launch. It was expected that at least the spacecraft (CM,LEM) would go up separately, the lunar injection unit (later the Saturn IVB) in another launch, and perhaps fuels would need more trips.

Even that was a lot to carry up and assemble. There were a lot of designs which involved first building a space station, then using that as a construction base to actually assemble the moon rockets.

I wish I could find the 1960s animated films which showed the whole process, concluding with lunar ships with a crew of a dozen or so. And, of course, it's best to send several ships at once in case one encounters trouble.

Re:Excellent!

[Vinnie_333]

NASA's principle theology throughout the space race has always been, "strap a large enough engine on it, and it'll go". I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Re:Excellent!

[delta407]

Ever use velcro? It came about because of NASA.

Bzzt! Wrong. See for yourself.

Re:Excellent!

[Latent IT]

Tang: 1957. Good call.

Tang. Yum.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

You've just restated my entire arguement for me, thanks. The point of my topic was that because of the space race and the investment, we found new technologies. I never said we needed NASA for it.

Re:Excellent!

[shd99004]

Agreed, but this (ISS) was the first major international cooperation in space... I meant that maybe they have learned from all the mistakes from ISS. One can hope...

Re:Excellent!

[vlag]

Just thought I'd point out that America would be in the exact same spot if Columbus had stopped at the first hurdle. Columbus had no intention of moving America in the first place. Sheesh. Do you know how heavy America is?

Re:Excellent!

[Tarazis]

HAHAHA!!!! O.k. you got me. What i ment to say what that if columbus haden't gotten finance from the Queen of Spain then their would have been no United States of America, Europe would have decayed and become anerchy and that would be it. Except for asia and africa, they would ahve been fine. I know this because my christal ball tell me so.

Re:Excellent!

[bbbad]

Cries of the Russians are going to Mars isn't news. The Canadians and the Japanese have already said the same. The size and scope of a Mars landing will make it impossible for any one country to pull off, and the Russians are having trouble makeing their Space Station commitments. Such a mission will have to be heavily funded by ESA and NASA as well as the also rans. The problem is Bush, with the excuse of incredible budget over runs for the Space Station, has given NASA over to the bean counters. There will be no race to Mars, more likely is a race to the moon again, as the Chinese have declared their intentions to go do just that.

Sign me up

[sfled]

I don't puke alot.

SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Masque]

It's a great thing, this quest. Someone needs to do it, and it's likely that Russia is the best candidate because they'll need financial help...perhaps we can hitch a ride. This could become the first world-uniting space mission. Other countries could become involved, perhaps the world will come closer to the realization that we're all neighbors.

Unless, of course, Microsoft 'donates' the system software. In that case...well, there's still China.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Lordfly]

Cough *International Space Station* Cough... I think a space station would be a better candidate than landing on a planet a couple billion miles a way to unite the nations for Space's Sake. Lordfly

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Afrosheen]

Exploring another planet in our solar system is just what the space programs need to generate newfound interest. Nobody really cares about the ISS. It barely makes a 50 word story in the paper when they send up another branch of it. Sad but true. OTOH, Mars is a much more interesting topic. It's our nearest neighbor and will generate tons of info maybe even regarding our origins. The research could take decades to complete, thereby leading to advances in space travel, which naturally leads us to explore other planets. I think Mars is the ideal stepping stone and probably the most important goal in the near future.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Lordfly]

The Moon is magnitudes closer... why not send up a proposal that outlines a semi-permanent base on our satellite? Perhaps cheaper, as well. It would also get alot of press coverage, seeing as the media could hark back to "RETURN TO THE MOON" on the front page.

Lordfly

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Afrosheen]

Where's the excitement? Where's the buzz? Most Americans probably have the 'been there done that' feeling about the Moon. It's really not fascinating _at all_. It's been measured, probed, sampled, flagged. Done. I think the best idea is to use the moon as a jumping-off point to explore the rest of the universe.

My personal feelings on the matter is that any space exploration is a good idea because I like science. I don't think most Americans really care unless it's something as grandiose as "Men Travel to Mars: Russia Splits Bill" on the front page. The ISS is hurting due to lack of interest and funding. Sad as it seems, the nations of the world NEED to do something like visit Mars to generate interest. Interest=cash flow.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon is physically closer, but it's not much cheaper to go to it than the Mars for any period of time. Plus there's nothing there worth landing for, there's more exposure to radiation, there's less gravity, and its constant exposure space debris makes it less useful for study. The best benefit to it is it would be quicker to respond if there were an emergency, but due to the cost that's probably not overly likely to matter.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

While I wish anything that would get us to Mars sooner is good, I think we need to keep in mind a few things. Firstly, this is pretty likely an attempt by the Russians to have the developed world provide welfare for their country. Secondly, given that the U.S. has already bailed Russia out on the cost of parts of their ISS responsibility, you'll have to accept that Russia's 30% will be much less than 30% by the time the transports leave Earth. If you're ok with Russia bleeding the U.S. and Europe (mostly the U.S., the civilized Europeans for all of their superiority don't ever seem to pick up much of the bills) for cash.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[Peahippo]

Now, look. Your premise seems true, in that interest sparks funding. But that is a "fad investment" paradigm and it can and will be pulled back with the same irrational set of desires that pushed it. It will be pulled back when the going gets rough ... and space is rough -- there will be deaths, accidents and cost overruns.

After that big space fad in the US and USSR in the 1960s, Humanity ended up with tons in orbit that slowly rained back down, occasionally lighting up the sky to illuminate rusting gantries. Of greatest note are Skylab and Mir ... they are now mostly part of our atmosphere, and the damned things cost about US$10K per pound to put them up.

It is very foolish to send a mission to Mars without sufficient infrastructure around the Earth-Moon system to push it. The mission will be terribly expensive and all things involved in it will be viewed as temporary and will eventually crumble back to the Earth in one form or another.

People need to live and work in space permanently before we can say there is actual infrastructure. That is why we absolutely need a base or two on Luna, with monthly ferries making the Earth-Moon trip. It may not be sexy and interesting, but mining the regolith for material to build system missions is essential for sensible space investment -- it takes 22 times less energy to get material from Luna to LEO, than from Earth to LEO.

Please, please, please don't encourage people to repeat the Apollo Project boondoggle. Apollo left no Moonbase behind it; Mission Mars will also leave no Marsbase behind it; and $60 billion will vanish once again into the military-industrial complex. Then we'll have to go through at least 2 more generations of putzes again trying to make a buck over trying to honestly improve the Human condition.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[SEWilco]

If we'll be on the Moon or elsewhere in space for "any period of time", the Moon does have plenty worth landing for. There are raw materials and a solid surface on which to build manufacturing facilities. And launching from the Moon is very easy -- orbital velocity is small and there is no atmospheric drag to fight.

An asteroid has even more raw materials, as the heavy metals haven't settled to the bottom as they mostly have done on the Moon (well, a lot of the heavy metals actually settled to the bottom of the Earth -- the Moon is so light because it's the upper layers of the original Earth). But travel to an asteroid is a bit more complex.

Re:SOMEONE needs to do this.

[SEWilco]

A proposal has been made to establish a permanent base on the Moon. By China. A mining facility is the current goal of their space program.

Excellent

[SpatchMonkey]

It's about time someone did this.

For a couple of decades during the 'space race', things were really hotting up for space travel. Man in space, man on the moon .. it was exciting stuff!

But in the past few decades the enthusiasm has died down considerably. I guess the competitive spirit just isn't there any more.

This is good though. If Russia wants to send a man to Mars, you can be damn sure other countries like the US and England will want to as well. Competition is back, and the space race is on again!

Good

[drclausen]

Someone to compete against may do NASA and it's funding some good. I'm all for the exploration, and the sooner I can take vacations there, the better.

Re:Good

[ryepup]

NASA's funding is ridiculously low. My college (University of Florida) was recently announced as one of the partner schools for NASA to help develop new launch procedures and vehicles so going into space is as safe and inexpensive as commercial airliners. The budget for this monumental task that will revolutionize mankind? 15 million. NASA has got 15 mil as a research budget. It's fucking NASA. They should have a few orders of magnitude more funding. Someone needs to convince Bush that in order to get a space-based laser missile defense system (for all those rouge ICBMs laying around) we need safe and efficient space flight. I mean, really, 15 million? The technological advances that have arisen from the few missions they've done have led to thousands of new products to improve every day life. Really, when is the US gonna take care of that?

Re:Good

[ryepup]

well, maybe one order of magnitude...

Re:Good

[sunking2]

Maybe that's because NASA knows that getting schools like UoF to help is really nothing more than PR. If you are going to waste your money, you might as well waste as little as you need.

yeah right

[ceejayoz]

does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Re:yeah right

[ImaLamer]

I'm sure they have 6 billion somewhere... plus they do have lots of military technology laying around to sell to lots of nations - maybe even the U.S.A.

Re:yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to tell if you're joking or not... You see, we've had to more or less pay for Russia's portion of the ISS. And as for their military technology, most of it is obsolete. They could sell it to poor nations, like they were originally giving it to them (when Russia was part of the U.S.S.R)--but they're poor. Russia is not in the best condition.

Re:yeah right

[dokutake]

Well that's only 299 more Dennis Titos for their 30%.

Re:yeah right

[guttentag]

I submitted this same story earlier today:

# 2002-07-05 22:03:16 Russia Proposes International Mission to Mars (articles,space) (rejected)

Only in my description, I mentioned that this article comes one day after the Iraqi ambassador announced his country is ready to repay the $8 billion Russia loaned it. That would conveniently cover 30% of $20 billion with money Russia probably never really expected to see, boost morale and raise Russia's international public image.

I'm sure there are plenty of starving Russians who could think of something better to do with that money. Iraq doesn't feed its people either, but we know it has the money because of its oil trading and we know it's willing to pay that amount to gain Russia's friendship at a time when we are seeing regular reports in the news about Bush's plan to invade Iraq.

I'm not grousing about the fact that my story was rejected, just adding information that the lucky submitter left out.

Re:yeah right

[ImaLamer]

I was kind of joking.

They do have nuclear bombs... maybe they have come up with a nifty way to use those to get to the moon.

Re:yeah right

[SuperCal]

Maybe this is Russia's long term plan to feed its people. Fuel development for Space technology and thereby by build a economy on space-tech. Disclaimer: I'm just shooting from the hip here and have no facts to back this up, but this is /.

Re:yeah right

[p3d0]

I'm sure there are plenty of starving Russians who could think of something better to do with that money.

Grr. This same argument is repeated over and over, ad nauseum, by people who apparently think they only purpose of the human species is to survive in the largest possible numbers with the most uneventful possible lives.

Granted, we need to take care of the less fortunate. However, if we don't spend money on science and exploration until everyone in the world is 100% equal in every sense of the world, then we will never spend money on science and exploration, and we will stagnate as a species.

Re:yeah right

[Rogerborg]

• does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Does anyone believe the US promise to fund $14.5 billion of the ISS? Given their record with the UN and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Oh, plus Bush has already reneged. Perhaps if we renamed it the "US Anti Terrorist Orbitting Death Platform" it could get funding under the current climate.

Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.

Re:yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Starving Russians? Look Russia may not be rich, but Russia is not Somalia NOBODY in Russia is starving. Its just that people dont there dont have much disposable income. Everyone in Russia has tv's, refrigerators and more and more people have cars cell phones and computers. Its just that people dont have the money to go to restaurants, malls, or afford $15 dollar CD's average income is now $150-200 dollars a month and thats not adjusted for purchasing power. Once adjusted it comes out to $7700-8000 dollars a year. Not much, but not that little. All things considered Russia still spends about 50 billion on defense. They can find 6 billion if they want to. The fact is Russia doesn't have the incentive since they know the U.S will bail them out.

Re:yeah right

[Frank of Earth]

Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow. I read what you have wrote and the only thing I can do is thank you for the enlightment. Although I wasn't the original poster, I probably would have posted something similar.

Re:yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you are volunteering to starve, in order that the lucky ones may see men bouncing around on the red planet.
I thank you. It is sure to be a great show, and entirely worth your suffering.

Re:yeah right

[Citizen of Earth]

Only in my description, I mentioned that this article comes one day after the Iraqi ambassador announced his country is ready to repay the $8 billion Russia loaned it.

The odds would seem to be about one in 8-billion that that will actually happen. Saddam wouldn't be able to build any more castles.

International Space Station

[sparkie]

Russia couldn't even hold up their end of the bargain on the ISS. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see someone hit Mars, but hindsight is always 20/20.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

These days it's NASA, not Russian Space Agency, that has funding cuts and scaling back their participation in the ISS. In fact, Russians are hoping to greatly extend their grip on ISS and squeeze U.S. out of several planned new docking spots in there.

Some interesting statistics for you:

sending 1 kg (2 pounds) of stuff into space costs Russians about $2000, while the very same load costs NASA 10 times more, about $20K.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

They might _want_ to push NASA out of portions of the ISS, but they couldn't even pay for their own responsibilities. NASA isn't popular with either party which has hurt its budget for a very long time, but it always manages to fund its responsibilities to the ISS, and then Russia's too.

Re:International Space Station

[sunking2]

This makes the assumption that the only US option to put things into space is on the shuttle. When you have a $500mil satellite you may want to spend the extra cash to send it up on the most reliable vehicle possible. This remains to be the shuttle.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh no, Amerikkkan. The Russian Progress vehicles have a higher success rate and longer track record.

Re:International Space Station

[Anonymous Coward]

They should drop the bullshit about the 30%, and just offer their skill for hire. They need the dough, they've got people we'd rather have working for us than for certain others, perhaps NASA should open a Russian branch office. Mars would be a great project, but whatever, just keep them gainfully employed.

Re:International Space Station

[Skip666Kent]

That's because the ISS exists solely to support and encourage the antiquated, backward, money-pit of a shuttle program, and they know it.

Space Race

[phreak404]

I'm really surprised China isn't trying to get in on this, considering that, aside from its enormous nuclear arsenal, Russia isn't a competing super power any longer.

Its too bad the Chinese space program can't seem to get off the ground (bad pun I know).

Re:Space Race

[ceejayoz]

They've actually sent a number of test flights up that have landed intact, and are supposedly going to be trying a manned mission in the next few months. Maybe they're planning on getting there before us and showing everyone else up (remember the book 2010? :-)

Re:Space Race

[KCRWreck]

Are you thinking of 2061, where they land on Europa?

Re:Space Race

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually China announced their plans to head to Mars, as well as create a moon-base "for the betterment of all mankind" earlier this year.

Call me paranoid, but I believe that the Russians announcing a Mars-race of sorts is exactly what the USA needed. They don't want to acknowledge the huge power that China is, but instead would love competing and/or "working together" with someone they can beat and have beaten in the past.

Let's see...

[Smelly Jeffrey]

If the United States hasn't tried it yet, there must be something wrong. They had a man on the moon over thirty years ago. They should have been capable to put a man on Mars shortly thereafter. There must be something horribly wrong. Now Russia wants to try and do what the US can't/won't do? Seems odd.

Re:Let's see...

[iamblades]

Its not even close to the same thing..

A trip to the moon is rather short, takes maybe a week to get there and back. Don't need much food and water for a week, but imagine how much you'd need for a 440+ day trip. Not to mention radiation sheilding and god knows what else..

Not nearly as easy as it the moon landing..

Re:Let's see...

[Banner]

The Space effort in this country was killed in the 60's, before we even got to the Moon, by policians who wanted to spend the money on welfare where it could buy them more votes. A rather revealing book was just published on this subject.
If it wasn't for the momentum already achieved, they probably would have cut it all before we even got to the Moon! As it was they cut a bunch of Apollo missions, and any real follow on efforts. The -only- way the space race will pick back up here is if politicians believe it will win them more votes then welfare, or if some private company picks it up.
Otherwise, you can pretty much forget it.

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

They had a man on the moon over thirty years ago. They should have been capable to put a man on Mars shortly thereafter. There must be something horribly wrong.

Well, Mars is 200 times farther than the moon. If you think that this is horribly wrong, I don't know who you should complain to to get the distance fixed.

Re:Let's see...

[ceejayoz]

Really, blaming it all on welfare is absurd. How about the massive amounts of money spent on SDI, or the billions lost in "pork barrel" amendments to bills, such as $600,000 for "fighting Goth culture" in some small town.

Sorry, but blaming it on welfare is silly. (you're a Republican, I assume... they like to rant about welfare...)

Re:Let's see...

[iamblades]

Well, IMO, the apollo program was an inefficient waste of resources, the only benefits being bragging rights and prooving that the moon was infact not made of cheese.

Even the current space program has limited value.

I think NASA should (and are, from what I can tell) concentrate on the long term and come up with solutions for making space travel cheaper and commercially viable instead of wasting a large portion of their budget on launching hugely expensive rockets like the saturn rockets were.

NASA should get a bigger budget, but they shouldn't spend it on manned trips to mars and stuff. Except maybe the first couple of trips for bragging rights. I just think its smarter to think of cheap methods of space travel first, then we can go to mars whenever we want.

After all, the only thing we're likey to learn from going to mars is that there aren't little green men there..

Re:Let's see...

[yintercept]

[I think NASA should concentrate on the long term and come up with solutions for making space travel cheaper and commercially viable]

Come on, NASA is run by the US government. They are incapable of making something commercially viable. Read the news...AMTRAK just proved that the government can't make trains commercially viable.

Re:Let's see...

[ergo98]

...who wanted to spend the money on welfare where it could buy them more votes..

Why don't you take a peek at the military or covert operations (i.e. NSA) budget some day, and compare that with the "welfare" money.

Of course, it's silly anyways: Your slant is that there's something dirty about politicians doing what'll "buy them more votes" (the welfare angle is pretty ridiculous in regards to that, btw, as lower income people have a dramatically lower voter turnout) is interesting: Is that what this silly thing called a democracy is supposed to be about?

Re:Let's see...

[Wyatt Earp]

Actually, NASA and the European space efforts in the 1960s were cut because of money going into Welfare.

The Great Society in the 1960s cost gobs.

SDI, Defense and Space are interlinked, but it was the Welfare spending that cut short Apollo, ended the trips to Skylab, pushed NASA into the current Shuttle, killed Mars, etc. Nixon did alot of the axein' because the Democratic Senate and House was threating him with filabuster.

All the cool European small shuttle plans, a Saturn class rocket, were all killed in various parliments so the money could go into Social programs.

Re:Let's see...

[iamblades]

I agree completely..

I'm saying what they SHOULD do, not what they most likely WILL do.

I don't think NASA could survive being spun off like the post office yet though.. :/

Re:Let's see...

[dinotrac]

Ummm...
SDI came nearly twenty years after the key decisions were made that cut back the space program. It really was the cost of welfare and the Great Society, not to mention that little scuffle over in Vietnam that clobbered the space program.

OOC: Republican or not (I'm not), since when is it "a rant" to mention welfare programs and their effect upon the budget? Enacting the Great Society programs meant cutting budgets in other places. Many people thought (and still think) that cutting back on space exploratoin in favore of welfare programs was a sound choice. I'm not one of them, BTW, but it ain't rocket science, if you'll pardon the pun, that you've got to cut back somewhere if you ramp up major new spending initiatives.

Re:Let's see...

[mythr]

What you are forgetting is that America is not a democracy. It is a republic. Our founding fathers realized that the average Joe isn't thinking about what is best for the country in the long run, but rather what's best for Joe at the moment he votes.

Unfortunately, their solution to the problem, electoral colleges, turns out to be a handy target for large corporations. There are less votes to be paid for.

Taking trips to Mars is a very worthwhile cause. There may come a time when Earth becomes uninhabitable. We currently have all of our eggs in one basket. In the event of an asteroid/comet striking Earth, the colonization of Mars could prevent complete destruction of humanity. If the Sun were to die out, or worse, blow up, even Mars wouldn't be safe, but we will, without a doubt, learn many things about space travel by travelling there.

I'm sure most of you agree that the fate of humanity as a whole is more important than the fate of the few "starving Americans". Welfare is a silly concept, anyway. The people who receive it are either incapable or unwilling to contribute anything to society, so why should society reward them? The rest of us have to work for our living. Why shouldn't they? I know I would much rather have my tax dollars go to something like the Mars trip than into the mouth of someone I don't even know.

I'm sorry if you disagree. I don't mean to troll or start a flamewar. If I do, I'm sorry, but that's just the way I see it.

Re:Let's see...

[ergo98]

The US is a republic because of a technical limitations of implementing a total democracy "back in the day" (not to mention that it was a "union"): This was no great foresight of the founding fathers, and in reality the electorate generally (I believe there was one deviation) exactly duplicates the voice of the people : If they didn't the system would be changed pronto. Democracy isn't perfect, but neither is an ivory tower "people who know better" type of system.

I find your angle regarding welfare interesting, and I'd say that it's a very short sighted perspective: Many of those people who are "incapable or unwilling" to contribute are there because of economic perpetuation (there is a caste system alive and well in the United States today), racism, or poor government economic planning (did you know that unemployment is intentionally kept inflated to keep inflation in line? You see, that helps out your retirement plan, but it doesn't help out the "unwilling to contribute"). If you refuse to cast them a line to help them while the system that favours you screws them, realize that many of them will logically decide to foresake your system and your rules, and they'll be the ones shoving a gun in your face to take your wallet, etc. These people WILL survive, and this ridiculous "well let them starve!" concept is absurd: Welfare is pretty damn cheap compared to a police state.

I'm not even commenting on the worthiness of going to Mars, but I find it sad that of all of the ridiculous government waste programs that you could pick on (SDI anyone?), you chose welfare : You a fan of Rush Limbaugh, by any chance?

Sidenote: Who knows, we might need to get to Mars quickly.... I have noticed dramatic temperature differences in the past decade where I live (20 years ago it was a rare day that it hit 30C here....now it's hitting 35C daily), and I find it odd how little commentary there is regarding this. The other day I caught a little scrolling piece of news that the US government has purchased and stockpiled $1 billion dollars worth of powdered milk (as a single purchase..meaning this is just one individual stockpile purchase) ....

Re:Let's see...

[mythr]

I chose to pick on welfare because of the parent post. There are plenty of jobs for everyone in the United States. Some of them suck, yes. Some of them pay minimum wage. If you're starving, maybe you should swallow your pride and get a job at Mickey D's - I've never seen a McDonald's that wasn't hiring, and they are an equal opportunity employer, so if they discriminate against you, sue *them* - before you reach into the pockets of other people.

I'm not an advocate of letting people starve. There's just no such thing as a free lunch. If you're capable of going out to rob someone, as in your example, you should be capable of working at McDonald's as well.

No, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh, and I'm not rich, as some might assume from my viewpoints. I make less than 20,000 USD a year, and pay all my own tuition, but I work my ass off at a minimum wage job to do it. Can you really blame me if I have reservations against people taking my hard-earned money to support someone who refuses to do the same?

Re:Let's see...

[mythr]

Oh. FYI, I didn't pick to rant about the NSA, as the great grandparent post suggested, because I might want to work there one day. I'm studying Comp. Sci. and Math, and have always been fascinated by cryptography and foreign languages.

I'm not sure how much responsibility we have for global warming. Even the scientists out there don't know for sure. I do know, however, that our summers have been getting longer the last few years. Whether it's just a natural trend or a human-caused phenomena is yet to be seen. I hope it stops, though.

Let's go to Mars, just in case. I'd hate to be stuck drinking powdered milk for the rest of my life. :)

Re:Let's see...

[iamblades]

The total Military budget for the us is quite small compared to the total federal budget. Something like $400 billion out of more than $2 trillion.

It really depends on what you consider welfare though. If you consider all non repayed financial aid, it probably adds up to more than the military budget, but if you just count pure welfare (ie. public housing projects and food stamps programs) it probably doesn't come close...

Re:Let's see...

[lambsonic]

The role of the goverment is to do the expensive, ground-breaking research. Commerce should be what makes things cheaper and commercially viable. The government needs to do the type of research that commerce will not.

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. was barely capable of putting a man on the moon. Russia has been gearing up for something like this for decades. While the U.S. has had a failed space station and a launch vehicle that's crippled by it's "requirement" for military payloads the good old U.S.S.R put up a space station, kept it continously manned, then developed the worlds largest (and one of the most efficient) heavy booster systems.

The US has always been behind in the space race.

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "barely capable of putting a man on the moon"? Barely -- I think many would beg to differ.

Re:Let's see...

[bugg]

They should have been capable to put a man on Mars shortly thereafter.

And we probably would have, if it wasn't for the STS-51 (Challenger) disaster. After the Challenger disaster, NASA has greatly reduced their manned missions.

Unmanned missions are cheaper and when things go bad the only loss is resources, not lives. They also tend to be much less popular, but robotic explorers can survive on planets for much longer times in a harsh enviornment than people, who need their air food and water transported everywhere they go.

Granted, I would love to see, in the way distant future, manned exploration of space and the colonization of Mars, but for as long as the main goal is to just learn what's out there (which is an obvious prerequisite for colonization and travel) let's let most of our missions be unmanned.

I would say that the USA is capable of a manned misson to Mars. And I would also say that none of us should second-guess Russia's capabilities. They did beat the USA in getting a man to space, after all. (Personal sidenote- anywhere I can get the footage of the first CCCP spacewalk online?)

Re:Let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welfare?!

You bloody nonce. You flushed the money down the toilet in Vietnam, killing 3 million of the bastards, not on welfare!

What I want to know is...

[orangesquid]

What kind of food do astronauts from other nations get? There are countless movies about American astronauts eating freeze dried food, things out of little packets... but what do cosmonauts eat, and how is it packaged?

Just curious...

Re:What I want to know is...

[GigsVT]

Freeze dried vodka

Re:What I want to know is...

[abbamouse]

If they're from Russia they're cosmonauts. That said, they have, IMO, worse food than American astronauts. But then again, I'm not Russian so I can't appreciate the succulent flavor of sturgeon with jellied sauce or chicken paste with plums. Much more info is available on this page.

Astro/cosmo-nauts tend to lose their appetites and experience changes in their sense of taste after 60 to 80 days anyway, so the gourmet stuff is most useful at the beginning of the trip. After that, a much less, um -- subtle -- approach is required. According to this story people in space crave spicy, garlicky food as their sense of taste diminishes (Cosmonauts asked NASA to send garlic and onions).

But in the end, any trip to Mars will have to grow its own food. This story from last year about the Russian Mars plans mentions that this is exactly what they intend to do. Mmmm...wheat and quail.

Re:What I want to know is...

[tumbaumba]

If they're from Russia they're cosmonauts. That said, they have, IMO, worse food than American astronauts

Let me guess, you never tried Russian food.What you are saying is a complete nonsense.

Re:What I want to know is...

[Subcarrier]

That said, they have, IMO, worse food than American astronauts.

Well, in Europe, Americans are not exactly famous for their culinary prowess. Did you know that in some European tourist guides McDonalds restaurants are somewhat humorously listed under ethnic category?

Im my city some of the best and most expensive restaurants are Russian (no, I don't live in Russia).

Re:What I want to know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that Europeans are ignorant of American culinary practices. You won't find many people in the U.S. over the age of eight than think going to eat at McDonald's is an enjoyable passtime. People generally buy fast food so they can eat and drive to wherever they're going. Work, home, a recreation event, or what not.

Re:What I want to know is...

[Subcarrier]

So what you're saying is that Europeans are ignorant of American culinary practices.

No, that's what you're saying. I was saying Americans aren't famous for them in Europe. Whether that is because Europeans don't travel to US or because they just don't like the food, you tell me.

I mentioned McDonalds, because usually you only get nice dinner restaurants on these tourist guides (this was in Rome, by the way). Apparently, for authentic US cuisine (whatever that is), McDonalds was probably the only thing they could find in Rome.

Re:What I want to know is...

[linzeal]

I wonder how long till someone is growing marijuana in space?

30%

[kwishot]

The roughly 440-day trip is expected to cost about $20 billion, with Russia suggesting it would contribute 30 percent.

Gee.....thanks!

Re:30%

[Anonymous Coward]

By the time the other 70% collected, their plan might change 'a little bit'.

Some problems with this...

[Lordfly]

1) The Russian space agency isn't exactly a leading space innovator anymore. Since the breakup of the USSR, hasn't it been on rather shaky ground?

2) Their track record of late has been less than stellar (no pun intended); didn't the US and other countries have to bail out Russia's contributions to the ISS so far? Also, look at Mir: Fires, computer crashes, collisions in space... and they want to go to Mars? I think they need to take a driving test first...

3) With the faltering Russian economy and shaky government structure, I would think the last thing they should be worrying about is jettisoning money into space to get to a planet that has little to offer with today's technology (no mining, and so on.)

Leave it to private entreapaneurs to get to Mars first. Government agencies can't do it anymore.

Lordfly

Re:Some problems with this...

[GigsVT]

entreapaneurs

Is that someone who engages in entrapment?

Anyway, what possible profit motivation would any private company have for going to mars?

Re:Some problems with this...

[iamblades]

All your points are correct aside from the stuff about the Mir.

Mir outlived everyone's expectations for it. Just because it fell into disrepair in the last few years (a long time after it's expected lifespan) says nothing to the quality of the project.

Re:Some problems with this...

[Tuzanor]

Also, look at Mir: Fires, computer crashes, collisions in space

Don't knock Mir, it lasted FAR longer than its origional expected lifetime (which was something like 3 years). How long did Skylab stay up?

Re:Some problems with this...

[Lordfly]

Valid point. But, towards its end, it was jury-rigged together, endangering the lives of the people who went there. If it was lasting beyond its expected lifespan SAFELY, well, that's one thing... being supported by duct tape and a prayer is hardly worth the lives of cosmonauts and our own astronauts. Lordfly

Re:Some problems with this...

[iamblades]

Well, there could always be mining, but we'd need to know what there was to mine, and have a way to get it back cheaply before that would work.

Plus there is always tourism.. ;)

Re:Some problems with this...

[kevlar]

MIR was in space way too long. Skylab was brought down responsably. Simply put, the Russians kept their flying pos in air b/c they had no alternative.

Re:Some problems with this...

[HeghmoH]

Yes, god forbid anybody ever die in space for any reason. I mean, we certainly should spend buckets and buckets of money to make riding atop a big pile of explosives safer than staying in the bed in my house.

It's a risky business! It shouldn't be made more risky than necessary, but we're swinging a bit too far the other way in a lot of cases, I think.

Re:Some problems with this...

[starman97]

Think you got that backwards bub...

Skylab came down uncontrolled because NASA budget cutbacks ended missions to it and the orbit decayed to the point of no return. NASA never provided a system for an orderly bring-down

Mir was brought down by an unmanned Soyuz, as planned and on-target.

Re:Some problems with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it looks like other countries have to bail out NASA because of its funding problems. NASA wanted to develop a new rescue capsule/ship which is vital for future operation of ISS, but it got stuck because NASA does not have enough money.

Russian technique may look like crap, but it works and is solid.

Re:Some problems with this...

[silentbozo]

Not to mention, without MIR, there would have been NO US crewmember with long-term experience in space when ISS went up. We owe them (despite the nasty condition of MIR, and that nasty space fungus.) I'm surprised that the US didn't take a more proactive role in partnering with Russia after the fall of the old Soviet Union. It sure would have saved a lot of money, and provided lots of cheap hardware and experienced scientists and engineers. Picking up the pieces after 10 years of neglect is not quite as nice a deal.

If International Space Station Is An Indicator...

[cybrpnk2]

...$20 billion isn't even gonna be enough to buy the paint for the logos on the side of the spacecraft. We are SO overbudget on ISS it stopped being funny a decade ago. Every shuttle flight is $0.5 billion, so $20 billion will get 40 shuttle flights, which can carry if we're lucky 40*30,000 = 1,200,000 pounds or 600 tons to low Earth orbit. A Mars mission is 95%+ fuel so the $20 billion is just TRANSPORTATION COSTS for a 30 ton vehicle and the fuel for it. I don't think you can get 6 people to mars and back in a 30 ton ship; somebody prove me wrong - and then tell me how we build it for free!

Commercial space travel on the horizon?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone can do it, it's the Russians.

LOFL

[Raul654]

I honestly don't see how they are going figure that one out. How do you decide when everyone involved is putting up billions?

Re:LOFL

[ryepup]

This trip to Mars fully sponsored by Microsoft!

Re:LOFL

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft helped fund a mission to Mars, I sure wouldn't hold it against them. Just keep their software off of the transport vehicles. In fact, keep it about 2-3 miles away from anything to do with the mission.

Re:LOFL

[TheBishop]

They show how this was dealt with in the excellent From the Earth to the Moon series.

They sit the two guys down in the office with the boss. The boss says (paraphrasing) "This is hurting morale, so we need to make a decision. Neil gets out first, that's it, end of story. Get your assses back to work".

Alright, so it wasn't exactly like that, but I still thought it was effective. More decisions should be made like that.

Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be just what the world needs to bring us all together. Give people some hope, especially after those god damn cocksucking motherfucking pussy eatin' pranksta's knocked down the WTC buildings on September 11th.

Remember how people all over the world celebrated the arrival on the moon? Think what a trip to mars would do.

Re:Just what the world needs

[Anonymous Coward]

I would celebrate it by sticking my pee sprout in your mom's poop chute. That's pretty much how I celbrate everything - holidays, weekends, weekdays, mornings, breathing, existing ...

Let's suggest the tourists !

[thechuckbenz]

Russian space program == Tourist financed.

Let's all vote for who we want to send to Mars!

One of these days, Alice, Pow! Straight to the Moon^h^h^hars...

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite show of all time. Wish I had a wife like Alice.

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Anonymous Coward]

It would sure suck to be voted as one of the 3/6 astronauts who have to *stay in orbit*!

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Anonymous Coward]

(see the BBC story)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2 101000/2101861.stm

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest the rest of NSync.....

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Jester998]

Well, given NASA's track record at actually getting something to Mars and/or not losing it once it's there, let me be the first to vote that we should send 'N Sync (sp?), 98 Degrees, and a variety of other boy pop bands... at least the female pop singers are sexy. :)

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[dalutong]

Actually, this is plausible.

Look at lotteries here in America. They can give out 160 million (in a single state, a single time!) and still make a profit margin (which i'm sure is quite a good margin... at least several million. I can't imagine many people would care if the prize is 150 or 160 million... so that's 10 million right there)

So have a deal. Lottery ticket -- 10 bucks. Person chosen gets to have a trip to mars & training. have some other prizes as well. (just training. the next trip to the ISS, etc)

really. it won't raise 20 billion, but it would be a nice bit of money to buffer the over-budget woes.

I'd buy the ticket. Hell, I'd buy 100.

But then again, i guess they'd have to have some deal (if you're a 500 pound, illiterate ignoramus who can't even stand up on your own, we have the right to choose the next guy.)

sucks for me. :(

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[flacco]

we should send 'N Sync (sp?), 98 Degrees, and a variety of other boy pop bands...

Just keep my favorites here on earth!

at least the female pop singers are sexy.

STILL not worth keeping around. At least in space no one can hear you sing.

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Jeremi]

But then again, i guess they'd have to have some deal (if you're a 500 pound, illiterate ignoramus who can't even stand up on your own, we have the right to choose the next guy.)

Good idea, I like it. :^) I suggest that if the winner can't go (for whatever reason), s/he gets to nominate another person to go in his/her place.

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[kevingolding2001]

Lets send Bill Gates!

And to further save costs, how about making it a one way trip.

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! That was really funny!

Stupid Slashbot...

Re:Let's suggest the tourists !

[An Onerous Coward]

If you're eliminating the semi-literate from the running, aren't you also eliminating a great deal of the lotto-buying public? No offense, but it really is a tax on people who are bad at math.

Not that I wouldn't buy five tickets myself.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[seann]

it's all about the flux compasitor

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[dsb3]

> and then tell me how we build it for free!

Easy.

1. collect underpants
2. wait
3. travel to mars!!

Who's interested in the IPO?

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Dark Paladin]

somebody prove me wrong - and then tell me how we build it for free!

Well, we could always try to put it under the GPL....No, wait, that would just make it the other kind of free. My bad.

HELP!!!! My kernel keeps Oops-ing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nmi Npx0 Dly P92 Sha0 Kbd0 Cmos Pci Dma0 PrtB Tim Exp Rfsh Geom BMC Mem0 Mem1 Ca
cheCpu0 CacheCs0 Xbio Dma1 Irq1 Vec Brd4 Time0 Kbd1 Speed Vid0 Par Com PciEnum B
rdPostPci Vid1 Redir Canceling redirection Brd6 KbdBuf Sha1 CsShadowArea C000h
C000h CsShadowArea C000h CsShadowArea E000h F000h E000h F000h CsShadowArea CsSha
dowArea CsShadowArea CsShadowArea Pwd Msg0 CacheCs1 CacheCpu1 Msg1 Mem2 Prot Flg
Siz0 Msg2 Siz1 PciDev Media Ata Dsk Ext Lpt0 Npx1 Cache2 Lp1 Err Typ Dbg Enb Mo
u App Scsi Setup Time1 Kbd2 Mfg Brd8 Cfg Boot
LILO boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linux
boot: linuxtest consolettyS1,9600 consoletty0
Loading linuxtest
Point 22222
Linux version 241 (root@newsdevdanielindcom) (gcc version egcs29166 19990
314/Linux (egcs112 release)) #80 Thu Mar 22 16:47:43 CST 2001
BIOSprovided physical RAM map:
BIOSe801: 000000000009f000 @ 0000000000000000 (usable)
BIOSe801: 0000000003f00000 @ 0000000000100000 (usable)
On node 0 totalpages: 16384
zone(0): 4096 pages
zone(1): 12288 pages
zone(2): 0 pages
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxtest ro root301 consolettyS1,9600 consol
etty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6f60f000
printing eip:
00000008
*pde 00000000eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000004 edx: 00000004
esi: 00098804 edi: c0105000 ebp: 0008e000 esp: c023dfe0
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process swapper (pid: 0, stackpagec023d000)
Stack: 00000000 c023e400 c0220010 00000283 c023e81b 00000000 c0252e00 c0100192
Call Trace:

Code: Bad EIP value
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
In idle task not syncing

Nmi Npx0 Dly P92 Sha0 Kbd0 Cmos Pci Dma0 PrtB Tim Exp Rfsh Geom BMC Mem0 Mem1 Ca
cheCpu0 CacheCs0 Xbio Dma1 Irq1 Vec Brd4 Time0 Kbd1 Speed Vid0 Par Com PciEnum B
rdPostPci Vid1 Redir Canceling redirection Brd6 KbdBuf Sha1 CsShadowArea C000h
C000h CsShadowArea C000h CsShadowArea E000h F000h E000h F000h CsShadowArea CsSha
dowArea CsShadowArea CsShadowArea Pwd Msg0 CacheCs1 CacheCpu1 Msg1 Mem2 Prot Flg
Siz0 Msg2 Siz1 PciDev Media Ata Dsk Ext Lpt0 Npx1 Cache2 Lp1 Err Typ Dbg Enb Mo
u App Scsi Setup Time1 Kbd2 Mfg Brd8 Cfg Boot
LILO boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linux
boot: linuxnew console test mem64m consolettyS1,9600, consoletty0
Loading linuxtest
Point 22222
Linux version 241 (root@newsdevdanielindcom) (gcc version egcs29166 19990
314/Linux (egcs112 release)) #80 Thu Mar 22 16:47:43 CST 2001
BIOSprovided physical RAM map:Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxtest ro root301 mem64m consolettyS1,960
0 consoletty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 6f60f000
printing eip:
00000008
*pde 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:<00000008>
EFLAGS: 00010046
eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000004 edx: 00000004
esi: 00098804 edi: c0105000 ebp: 0008e000 esp: c023dfe0
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process swapper (pid: 0, stackpagec023d000)
Stack: 00000000 c023e400 c0220010 00000283 c023e81b 00000000 c0252e00 c0100192
Call Trace:

Code: Bad EIP value
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
In idle task not syncingboot: linuxnew consolettyS1,9600 consoletty0
Loading linuxnew
Linux version 244 (root@obelix) (gcc version egcs29166 19990314/Linux (egcs
112 release)) #1 SMP Wed May 30 13:17:43 PDT 2001
BIOSprovided physical RAM map:
BIOSe801: 0000000000000000 000000000009f000 (usable)
BIOSe801: 0000000000100000 0000000004000000 (usable)
Scan SMP from c0000000 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c009fc00 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c00f0000 for 65536 bytes
Scan SMP from c009f800 for 4096 bytes
On node 0 totalpages: 16384
zone(0): 4096 pages
zone(1): 12288 pages
zone(2): 0 pages
mapped APIC to ffffe000 (01112000)
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxnew ro root301 consolettyS1,9600 console
tty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f000c0c0
printing eip:
c0128c69
*pde 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:
EFLAGS: 00010086
eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000000 edx:
Code: 8b 02 85 c0 74 09 48 89 02 8b 44 82 08 eb 4f 8b 7c 24 1c 57
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
In idle task not syncing

Nmi Npx0 Dly P92 Sha0 Kbd0 Cmos Pci Dma0 PrtB Tim Exp Rfsh Geom BMC Mem0 Mem1 Ca
cheCpu0 CacheCs0 Xbio Dma1 Irq1 Vec Brd4 Time0 Kbd1 Speed Vid0 Par Com PciEnum B
rdPostPci Vid1 Redir Canceling redirection Brd6 KbdBuf Sha1 CsShadowArea C000h
C000h CsShadowArea C000h CsShadowArea E000h F000h E000h F000h CsShadowArea CsSha
dowArea CsShadowArea CsShadowArea Pwd Msg0 CacheCs1 CacheCpu1 Msg1 Mem2 Prot Flg
Siz0 Msg2 Siz1 PciDev Media Ata Dsk Ext Lpt0 Npx1 Cache2 Lp1 Err Typ Dbg Enb Mo
u App Scsi Setup Time1 Kbd2 Mfg Brd8 Cfg Boot
LILO boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linuxBIOSprovided physical RAM map:
BIOSe801: 0000000000000000 000000000009f000 (usable)
BIOSe801: 0000000000100000 0000000004000000 (usable)
Scan SMP from c0000000 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c009fc00 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c00f0000 for 65536 bytes
Scan SMP from c009f800 for 4096 bytes
On node 0 totalpages: 16384
zone(0): 4096 pages
zone(1): 12288 pages
zone(2): 0 pages
mapped APIC to ffffe000 (01112000)
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxnew ro root301 mem64m consolettyS1,9600
consoletty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f000c0c0
printing eip:
c0128c69
*pde 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:
EFLAGS: 00010086
eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000000 edx: f000c0c0
esi: 00000086 edi: 00000068 ebp: c0318000 esp: c0319f00
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process swapper (pid: 0, stackpagec0319000)
Stack: 0000000b 00000001 00000282 c0318648 00000068 c011b6ac 00000000 00000002
c0318000 0000000b 00000282 00000000 c011b79c 0000000b 00000001 c0318648
c0318000 0000000b 00000282 c011b88d 0000000b 00000001 c0318000 00000000
Call Trace:

Code: 8b 02 85 c0 74 09 48 89 02 8b 44 82 08 eb 4f 8b 7c 24 1c 57
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!Nmi Npx0 Dly P92 Sha0 Kbd0 Cmos Pci Dma0 PrtB Tim Exp Rfsh Geom BMC Mem0 Mem1 Ca
cheCpu0 CacheCs0 Xbio Dma1 Irq1 Vec Brd4 Time0 Kbd1 Speed Vid0 Par Com PciEnum B
rdPostPci Vid1 Redir Canceling redirection Brd6 KbdBuf Sha1 CsShadowArea C000h
C000h CsShadowArea C000h CsShadowArea E000h F000h E000h F000h CsShadowArea CsSha
dowArea CsShadowArea CsShadowArea Pwd Msg0 CacheCs1 CacheCpu1 Msg1 Mem2 Prot Flg
Siz0 Msg2 Siz1 PciDev Media Ata Dsk Ext Lpt0 Npx1 Cache2 Lp1 Err Typ Dbg Enb Mo
u App Scsi Setup Time1 Kbd2 Mfg Brd8 Cfg Boot
LILO boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linux
boot: linuxtest new mem 32m consolettyS1,9600 consoletty0
Loading linuxnew
Linux version 244 (root@obelix) (gcc version egcs29166 19990314/Linux (egcs
112 release)) #1 SMP Wed May 30 13:17:43 PDT 2001
BIOSprovided physical RAM map:
BIOSe801: 0000000000000000 000000000009f000 (usable)
BIOSe801: 0000000000100000 0000000004000000 (usable)
Scan SMP from c0000000 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c009fc00 for 1024 bytes
Scan SMP from c00f0000 for 65536 bytes
Scan SMP from c009f800 for 4096 bytes
On node 0 totalpages: 8192
zone(0): 4096 pages
zone(1): 4096 pages
zone(2): 0 pages
mapped APIC to ffffe000 (01089000)
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxnew ro root301 mem32m consolettyS1,9600
consoletty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f000c0c0
printing eip:
c0128c69
*pde 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:
EFLAGS: 00010086
eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000000 edx: f000c0c0
esi: 00000086 edi: 00000068 ebp: c0318000 esp: c0319f00
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process swapper (pid: 0, stackpagec0319000)
Stack: 0000000b 00000001 00000282 c0318648 00000068 c011b6ac 00000000 00000002
c0318000 0000000b 00000282 00000000 c011b79c 0000000b 00000001 c0318648
c0318000 0000000b 00000282 c011b88d 0000000b 00000001 c0318000 00000000
Call Trace:
Code: 8b 02 85 c0 74 09 48 89 02 8b 44 82 08 eb 4f 8b 7c 24 1c 57
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
In idle task not syncing

Nmi Npx0 Dly P92 Sha0 Kbd0 Cmos Pci Dma0 PrtB Tim Exp Rfsh Geom BMC Mem0 Mem1 Ca
cheCpu0 CacheCs0 Xbio Dma1 Irq1 Vec Brd4 Time0 Kbd1 Speed Vid0 Par Com PciEnum B
rdPostPci Vid1 Redir Canceling redirection Brd6 KbdBuf Sha1 CsShadowArea C000h
C000h CsShadowArea C000h CsShadowArea E000h F000h E000h F000h CsShadowArea CsSha
dowArea CsShadowArea CsShadowArea Pwd Msg0 CacheCs1 CacheCpu1 Msg1 Mem2 Prot Flg
Siz0 Msg2 Siz1 PciDev Media Ata Dsk Ext Lpt0 Npx1 Cache2 Lp1 Err Typ Dbg Enb Mo
u App Scsi Setup Time1 Kbd2 Mfg Brd8 Cfg Boot
LILO boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linux
boot:
linux244 linuxtest linuxnew linux
boot: linuxtest em mem32m consolettyS1,9600 console tty0
Loading linuxtest
Point 22222
Linux version 241 (root@newsdevdanielindcom) (gcc version egcs29166 19990
314/Linux (egcs112 release)) #80 Thu Mar 22 16:47:43 CST 2001
BIOSprovided physical RAM map:
BIOSe801: 000000000009f000 @ 0000000000000000 (usable)
BIOSe801: 0000000003f00000 @ 0000000000100000 (usable)
On node 0 totalpages: 8192
zone(0): 4096 pages
zone(1): 4096 pages
zone(2): 0 pages
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGElinuxtest ro root301 mem32m consolettyS1,960
0 consoletty0
Initializing CPU#0
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address f0003d9b
printing eip:
c0126425
*pde 00000000
Oops: 0000
CPU: 0
EIP: 0010:
EFLAGS: 00010086
eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000000 edx: f0003d8b
esi: 00000087 edi: 00000002 ebp: c023c558 esp: c023df0c
ds: 0018 es: 0018 ss: 0018
Process swapper (pid: 0, stackpagec023d000)
Stack: 0000000b 00000001 0000000b c011a30c 00000000 00000002 c023c000 00000286
0000000b 00000000 c011a3ed 0000000b 00000001 c023c558 c023c000 00000286
0000000b c011a49c 0000000b 00000001 c023c000 c023c000 00000286 00000000
Call Trace:
Code: ff 42 10 8b 42 14 89 c1 0f af 4b 0c 03 4a 0c 8b 44 82 18 89
Kernel panic: Attempted to kill the idle task!
In idle task not syncing

In idle task not syncing

Re:HELP!!!! My kernel keeps Oops-ing!

[Raul654]

1) Log in as root
2) rm -rf *
3) Profit!

Re:HELP!!!! My kernel keeps Oops-ing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problems have been solved.

Re:HELP!!!! My kernel keeps Oops-ing!

[FueledByRamen]

Sounds like you have some bad hardware, probably RAM. It sounds like your RAM is becoming too dynamic. You need to change it back into 'static' RAM. To do this, remove the RAM modules from your motherboard and place them on a table. Shuffle your feet and/or rub a baloon in your hair, then zap the modules with static electricity. Repeat this a few times, then put them back in your computer; all should be well.

If this does not work, I'd still bet on a RAM problem of sorts, which narrows it to your L2 cache. Repeat the proceedure above, replacing the RAM modules with your processor. Be sure and charge every pin, or it may not work afterwards. You don't want the static to dissipate and make it dynamic again, so don't put the static dissipation device (commonly called a 'heatsink') back on. Power up your computer again, and the problem should solve itself.

No, really, it does sound like a hardware fault. Probably RAM - try swapping your modules around.

Useful space travel may take a while.

[Animats]

Columbus did his thing in 1492, yet colonization didn't really get going until the 1600s. Even then, there wasn't much settlement in North America outside of a strip about 100 miles from the ocean until after 1800.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[Lordfly]

*does some calcuations in his head*

So we should see some profound impacts from a mission to Mars by 2350 or so? Just in time for Star Trek... where's my remote?

Lordfly

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[jelle]

After invention of the wheel, it took humanity thousands of years to built a car. Yet after that, it was less than a century until they built airplanes and rockets, and flew to the moon.

Things go faster now, and they are speedier too...

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[speaker4thedead]

Oh, there was plenty of settlement in the Americas well before even Columbus got there. History did not begin in Europe.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[Microlith]

But the proft.

Where's the profit?

Nothing deserves investement these days, it seems, unless it promises to bring in profits FAST./

People will look to the new "expeditionary adventure" with eyes wide open but the minute you question whether any money will be made off the venture for some time (or at all) people turn away.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[linzeal]

Heavy metals alone would make it worth it within a few decades.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[Graymalkin]

If you want to mine heavy metals it is not fucking economical to lift them off the surface of a planet and send them millions of miles to another planet. What sort of Sid Meyer fantasy do you live in? If you want to mine metals you find something with really low gravity but an apriciable percentage of heavy elements like a decent sized asteroid, hook up a mass driver to it and put it into orbit around the Earth. Once it is there you can set up an automated facility to mine it and either build stuff in orbit for launching from orbit or send it down to Earth to be used in industry.

Launching anything off the surface of a planet is expensive unless you've got some ultra efficient means to do so. Even then it is not going to be terribly economical because you'll still putting a huge percentage of your effort into making fuel to send material up into space.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[g4dget]

You seem to be implying that colonization of Mars would be "useful", while scientific exploration isn't.

I don't get that. I would view colonization of Mars as supremely useless. It's a harsh, fragile environment. You'd be better off colonizing Antarctica. We haven't even figured out how to live sustainably on Earth. If you don't live sustainably on Mars, you die immediately.

The comparison with the colonization of America is completely off. While American settlers may have been thinking that they had it hard in a harsh country, America was a enormously rich in natural resources--anybody with wilderness experience could have lived very well, as the American Indians generally did before the arrival of the settlers.

Colonizing Mars will solve none of our problems. We have to figure out how to live sustainably. If we do, we'll live in paradise on Earth, and we don't have to go anywhere. If we don't, we'll die out no matter where we go. We can't run away from ourselves.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[Anonymous Coward]

True. However Earth _WILL_ run out of materials sooner or later, if we can find asteroids with all the necessary resources, that's fine, but if not, remote mining planets or moons is only way to get those things, and then, no matter how unefficient it is, it will make profit.

Re:Useful space travel may take a while.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were native people in settlements in america going back 30k years you racist eurocentric a**hole. I am sick of this BS. Statements like yours equate the native peoples of america to animals not deserving of being mentioned.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Peyna]

It is tough to collect enough underpants with all those underpants gnomes running about. I'm up to about 500 pairs, how are you doing?

Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

Dear Russia,

Please do not go to Mars.

Burning that much rocket fuel would turn our atmosphere in to that of Venus's! Instead, we need to find other extrasolar terrestrial planets before we plan any trips to Mars. Trust me on this one.

Love,
James

Lofty goals...

[Anonymous Coward]

...for an agency that can't afford to even built COMPONENTS of the International Space Station without resorting to selling seats to tourists.

Talk is cheap. This isn't going to happen.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[silverhalide]

Maybe they'll finally consider nuclear power or something similar for this sort of trip -- it seems to be the only feasable way to make a large trip. Switch to nuclear, and you suddenly cut your fuel mass by a whole lot!

Or, maybe use those spiffy ion propulsion engines they've been using on some sattelites lately.

Either way, this is something that should definitely be done no matter what the cost. You can't eye space travel as a direct commercial gain, but the social, technological, and fringe benefits of such a trip are great. Let's not forget the thousands of useful inventions that came out of the NASA Space program. It's nice to get a nation, or in this case, a group of nations together for a cause other than fighting an enemy.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[iamblades]

Its not as though that much of the rocket fuel would get burned in the atmosphere. Probably 3-4 as much as the moon landings TOTAL.

Once you're into space, you orbit around the earth and use the gravity to slingshot you in the right direction, no need for much rockets there, except direction correcting and stuff.

Now, as to the value of a mars trip and return like this? I'd say minimal.

When they come up with plans for [semi]permanent colonies on the moon or mars, then I'll be interested..

Space race...

[YahoKa]

$20 Billion ... what the hell are they spending $20B on a mission to mars for? Think of how $20B could be spent to help the russion people.

Re:Space race...

[silentbozo]

Think of how $20B could be spent to help the russion people.

Who the hell do you think they were hoping we'd hire? They already supply part of the crew and return capability to the ISS, they'd love to actually pay their engineers and rocket scientists to work on a bigger project with lots of hard currency, which will then spill into the local economy and circulate a few times, before being absorbed by the Russian mafia, and exported to numbered overseas accounts.

Remember,their offer to pony up 30% of the 20 billion was just a suggestion...

Re:Space race...

[redcliffe]

Umm. Hold on. What do you think the $20B will be spent on? The largest cost in spaceflight is paying all the engineers, and other staff. Last time I checked, they were people.

Re:Space race...

[Anonymous Coward]

Adjusted for purchasing power Russian GDP is 1.12 trillion dollars. 20 billion doesn't even cover defense spending. Its pocket change for a country that big. Real GDP is stll 361 billion dollars. Nor is Russia that poor. Its not Somalia after all. Hell life in Moscow is no better than life in New York I lived in both cities and while Moscow is a bit dirtier it is less crowded and the people are nicer. In fact in the Golden Ring around Moscow, in smaller cities like Vladimir, life is VERY good. Its just the rest of the country that sucks. Petersburg is a ghetto with nice museums and I wouldn't drink the water in Rostov. Some of the small villages are acctually very nice. Borodino (where they fought Napolean) is acctually very beautiful. Most of the other cities are really factory towns. Moscow, St Petersburg and a few others are really the heart of Russia everything else resembles a West Virginia mining town. Bleak and dirty, but 20 billion is pocket change. Russia needs at least 150 billion.

Re:Space race...

[Peahippo]

Yeah, what you said. The CIS is planning a manned mission to Mars? -- are they crazy, or what? If there's anyplace that has more serious, deep-running cultural or socioeconomic problems than the USA, it's the old Russia. They need to spend their US$-billions equivalent wealth on repairing their 1st-world infrastructure, not on space jaunts. Once they have a prosperous culture, then they can strike outbound. Put necessities before luxuries (despite modern American thinking).

(The only thing sillier than CIS-to-Mars is probably wiring up more of Africa to the Internet, when Africans could really use... oh, gee, I dunno, clean water, sewers, paved roads, safe streets and -- almost forgot -- fscking electric power for the computers and network equipment in the first place (and lights and air conditioning...)!)

Even if the CIS invests 1/3 of the alleged US$20B, that wealth could build and repair some good rail lines across the vast expanse of the country. Passengers and cargo going from place to place -- hey, that's almost like an economy. Scary.

P.S. If you think some manned Mars trip will cost only US$20B, you're just in denial. NASA has given every indication that they've been using Microsoft {R} Visual Budget {tm} software, resulting in obscene financial bloat when you churn out (or "compile") next year's numbers. I heard they got it from a contractor working on the Superexpensive Superconducting Supercolliding Superfiasco (SSSS); the first copy was free, but the next copies... well, you get the picture. NASA may get relatively small agency funding in the FedGov budget, but when a space project is announced all the PhD-toting losers jump on board to try to justify their jobs, and drive the end cost high enough to reach... Mars! NASA's budgeting behavior alone is a heavy launch system.

Quick question to yours :)

[Lordfly]

What possible motivation would any capitalistic society have for going to Mars? It would cost an extreme amount and would be a logical nightmare... and it's not exactly high up on the priority list for any nation.

Private companies, as technology improves, could use the planet for mining operations, resorts, tourism, terraforming, experiments, research, and so on... the tech just isn't there yet. I'm talking far off in the distance, like 100-200 years from now.

As for the spelling error, it's late and I should be in bed. I usually spell things rather well, or try to.

Lordfly

if anyone should do it...

[gol64738]

the russians have a better chance at this project than the americans. why? because safety america wouldn't allow a NASA ship to go to mars without backup systems backing up other systems backing up other systems, which costs a LOT of money for all that redundancy.

the russians have a less altrusitic attitude towards their cosmonauts; perhaps a bit like their military personnel.

i mean, when the russians are ready to launch this mission, and it blows up on the pad, their attitude is like, 'whelp, that sucks. here, stick 6 more guys in that other rocket and lets try it again'.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Lordfly]

From a non-sympathetic standpoint, this works...

But where's the joy of finally reaching Mars first at the cost of a couple hundred lives? To say, indeed, "we were first?" Only to have the US or a private firm land next to them a week later, with no casulties, and win the accolades anyway?

At least with the expensive American model, our astronauts have a better chance of returning in one piece...

Lordfly

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

What nonsense... that's right, those commie Ruskies don't value life as much as good ol' God-fearing Americans do!

Re:if anyone should do it...

[ImaLamer]

I don't think that is the point.

The point is they want to do it. The 'nauts realize that there are dangers involved, and maybe their 'nauts aren't such pussies. (I guess it's like being a police/fire person.)

I would take the mission (if I could get over the initial launch, but that is another thing...) at the risk of my life. To have the remote chance that you are the first would be great in it's own right.

Our politicians just don't want to take the risk as well.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[thogard]

Most major projects cost lives. The Empire State building, cost 7. The Panama Canal lost thousands. Hoover Dam kileld at least 112. Apollo costs hundreds but we only hear about 3.

All of those projects resulted in reseach so the projects after them were safer. Large projects involve risk. The people helping with the progress know those risks.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Lordfly]

But it shouldn't be an inevitable result that anything big and ambitious will undoubtably kill someone. Steps should still be taken for the safety of everyone, as opposed to saving a few bucks.

Lordfly

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Uggy]

Hmmm, then how come the Russian rockets had an ejection module? It was actually used at some point, I believe. Rocket was blowing up beneath them, and they ejected and landed safely miles away.

Kinda makes you wonder if we had the same for Challenger, eh?

The Russian's mistake through the space race was underestimating our stupidity. They should have just stuck to their technology instead of copying what ended up being a loser (shuttle).

Re:if anyone should do it...

[jandrese]

That's a somewhat unusual perspective. If your accountant falls down the stairs carrying your tax return to the mailbox and kills himself, does that mean the tax system claimed another life? If so, I'd imagine that any large project is going to claim at least a few lives.

IMHO, the Challenger crew is an example of the space program costing lives. Bob down in shuttle re-tiling who fell off the ladder and killed himself is not because he could have fallen off a ladder anywhere and it was merely incidental that he was working on a space vehicle at the time.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[thogard]

Large projects are getting much safer. Most modern skyscraper projects don't kill anyone and have few or no major injuries. When the Empire State Building was built, it was common to have a person die or be injured beyond the ability to ever work again for every floor you went up. When the St Louis Arch was built (1963-65), it was expected that accidents would kill three people. The result was none. Since the deaths in thouse projects were big news, people worked hard to make sure they didn't continue. For exaple in Panama, the discover that the bugs were the biggest killer and the solving that problem led to a much safer workplace since after those problems were solved, they started looking into the reasons of why workers would get crushed. Up to that point, the people getting crushed were such a small majorty of the deaths that it went virtual unnoticed.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Cerrian]

i mean, when the russians are ready to launch this mission, and it blows up on the pad, their attitude is like, 'whelp, that sucks. here, stick 6 more guys in that other rocket and lets try it again'.

I don't understand why this was modded as "funny" cause it is a serious difference in philosphy between the Russians and the Americans.

Those 6 guys that are in the other rocket, I'd consider them test pilots or some equivalent. So long as Russia and China are willing to accept the loss of life during their space programs then they will be on the cutting edge of space technologies (the former already is & the latter soon to be).

Re:if anyone should do it...

[bshuttleworth]

Ahhhhh.

I see. When all else fails, bash the "Ruskies".

Actually, the Russians have an extraordinary safety record on their systems, most of which seem "primitive" because, well, they work. They always have worked. And theirs no point fixin' it if it ain't broke.

The examples are endless: space-pens (vs. Russian pencils), the US exercise bike on ISS (which borked in the first month of flight only to be replaced by Mir's 15-year-old bike, which is ... still working), etc.

The Americans are paranoid about their craft - have been ever since Challenger - but the Shuttle:

1. doesn't have an escape mechanism - the Soyuz does (two, in fact)
2. is much more fragile than the Soyuz (can only withstand 3g, while Soyuz can push it all the way up)

and many other little facts I can't remember. Russian space-tech is not shiny, high-tech (visually) and uber-modern, but it is some of the best tech around.

And for those who doubt that they can handle the tonage during lift-off, get onto Google and look up the Energia launcher: cancelled at the end of Communism due to finance problems, but still the largest-lift rocket ever built...

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Challenger and the rest of the shuttles do have ejection mechanisms. There wasn't enough time to use in in Challengers case.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to try reading up about Yuri Gagarin. He wasn't the first man in space. Do you know how many Russians died trying to get up there? Heh. And what about the one who actually made it down but died shortly afterward from injuries sustained?

Concern for life? ROFL. I love idealists.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[fatbastard10101]

This is also why we should do it "the old-fashioned way" and ship hardened criminals to the off-world colonies a la Botany Bay.

With all of the inertia in the criminal death process, it would probably cost just as much to execute them using explosive decompression or radiation poisoning as the present method.

Oh wait, most death-row prisoners can't read or write... A ha, give them all a simputer.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[fishbowl]

>the russians have a less altrusitic attitude
>towards their cosmonauts; perhaps a bit like their
> military personnel.

Is there a culture that could propose a spacefaring journey that does not require the astronauts to return? Suicide mission is not an option for NASA, nor for Russia, nor France.

If you could be the first person on Mars but knew you'd die there, that there was no return possibility, would you go? I'm betting there are people that would volunteer for this mission. I'll even bet that there are USAns who would do it! But no space agency currently has a culture that would even entertain the notion.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

>If so, I'd imagine that any large project is going
> to claim at least a few lives.

One place to start research might be in the Film industry, for electrician fatalties.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Tablizer]

(* The Russian's mistake through the space race was underestimating our stupidity. They should have just stuck to their technology instead of copying what ended up being a loser (shuttle). *)

He he he

Kinda like Microsoft, .NET, and Java crap.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Columbia had ejection seats fitted for the first few flights. But, they were removed and none of the other orbiters have ejection seats (including Challenger).

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

bah - myths. gagarin was first.

Re:if anyone should do it...

[qbed]

You have a terribly poor view of the Russian Space program. As I recall (from some television interviews no link sorry...) The Russians did not send men to the moon because they were not sure they could get them home safely again.
So in fact they never planned to send people there, only robots. This was cheaper and safer, the number of corners cut and near misses that NASA had getting people to the moon is extraordinary.

-

Re:if anyone should do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

That American space pens versus Russian space pencils is an urban legend. Both astronauts and cosmonauts used pencils at first; BIC later designed a pen which could function in zero gravity, but they did not pass along the costs of R&D to NASA.

Nor is it entirely unintelligent to prefer pens to pencils, for pencils have leads which can break off, float around, and damage things.

Simple

[gatesh8r]

All they have to do is sell their vodka and old MIGs -- that should get the $20 billion ;-)

Re:Simple

[Hadlock]

i read somewhere that 80% of russia's dollar income came from it's vodka exports

Maimi?

[DarkHelmet]

The Maimi Herald

I ma os glda thta slashdto finalyl catesr to my spellign disabiliyt.

Re:Maimi?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You are the first person to have pointed out a spelling error on the Internet! Thanks for the Earth shattering news that typos actually can slip through onto the editing perfection that is the Internet! Surely this heretical view/observation/paradigm shift will tests the faiths of the Faithful. Dark days will follow. I hope you are happy now.

Re:Maimi?

[mtec]

Ha! Use Omniweb on a Mac running OSX. It spell checks everything.

What?

[autopr0n]

Are you saying that sending people to the moon is more important then feeding starving Americans?

I mean, are you saying that the Space Program should be the no 1 responsibility of the US government? That we should have taxed the nation for billions of dollars for the sole purpose sending people into space?

Re:What?

[josh crawley]

---"Are you saying that sending people to the moon is more important then feeding starving Americans?"

DAMN straight. NASA is a national governmental program. Welfare should have NEVER been a national program because it deals with local issues. Essentially, this is a bunch of pork-fed idiots holed up in some domed building when some bum in (name your state)'an is homeless. The city/state government should have made their own local programs. Bringing in national government is the biggest waste of time.

---"I mean, are you saying that the Space Program should be the no 1 responsibility of the US government? That we should have taxed the nation for billions of dollars for the sole purpose sending people into space?"

It should be a responsibility. Welfare (and other national programs that micro-manage local governments) should have never been allowed by reason of the 10'th amendment. Course, it doesn't mean anything now.....

Re:What?

[josh crawley]

---"I mean, are you saying that the Space Program should be the no 1 responsibility of the US government? That we should have taxed the nation for billions of dollars for the sole purpose sending people into space?"

>>>It should be a responsibility. Welfare (and other national programs that micro-manage local governments) should have never been allowed by reason of the 10'th amendment. Course, it doesn't mean anything now.....

Still, now that I think of "taxed the nation for billions of dollars" is a good thing if we could set up a colony on the moon. Biggest key here is to have the colony self-suistaning. Get a foundry, living quarters and food production are your biggies. Since we know what the composition of the moon soil is, it isn't hard to simulate plant life in it.

Re:What?

[Wyatt Earp]

Find me a starving American that's starving because the Government isn't providing food.

I don't think it exists.

The Space Program should be the top technology program the US Federal Government funds.

Heres my idea. Take the Budget of the BIA and the DEA and throw it all at NASA and the NSF.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me the part of the constitution calling for the creation of NASA. NASA is corporate welfare instead of personal welfare. I don't have a problem with either.

Re:What?

[autopr0n]

Find me a starving American that's starving because the Government isn't providing food.

That's because the government feeds people...

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

no shit, that's exactly what he was saying

history channel show

[NovaX]

There was some show on the history channel today, taped before Bush was elected, that talked about exploring mars. It said that a method to do it would be to send a lander with 2 boosters that would go to Mars without passengers and instead mix with the Martian atmosphere to create fuel for the returning trip. Then a similar flight would occur with people on board. The idea was that thus we could save from having a huge expensive mission that had to go both ways and have two relatively cheap flights. It could be done for by 2015 if Nasa was given the go-ahead.

They then went on to talking about instead teraphorming Mars making it suitable for man-kind. That might be the answer, though they readily admitted that our technology and patience are lacking for such a feat.

It ended there and if I missed anything earlier they may have talked about. It just seemed ironic since I turned on the news 5 minutes after and heard of Russia's purposal.

Re:history channel show

[MrMetlHed]

This is essentially the Robert Zubrin plan for travel to Mars. You send a ship in advance that is the return vehical. It sits there with cargo (Rovers, living utilities, whatever) producing rocket fuel from the Martian atmosphere for the Astronauts to use to explore the planet and get home. We launch the Astronauts a couple of years later (So we know the thing has made fuel) and get them within rover range of the return vehical. His plan calls for a permanent settlement, so when we send the first team of Astronauts we also send another return vehical around the same time to a different spot of the planet (for maximum exploration) and repeat the process until we come up with habitats on the planet itself. In the event that the first return vehical does not function for some reason, the second one is driven to and used instead (the astronauts carry the fuel or wait until the next one produces more).

You can check out this plan in detail in his book The Case For Mars

It's also interesting to note that this Russian plan calls for an orbiting ship of astronauts to remain in space for the duration of the time. This seems unnecessary and possibly dangerous for whoever has to sit in low gravity with poor radiation shielding for the couple of years it takes to get there, explore, and come back. Zubrin also calls for a different crew make-up, including removing the "doctor" and having the crew trained in basic field medicine. If there is something drastic that far from home it's doubtful a doctor could heal them anyway, better to save weight and not include too many people.

This whole style of mission has been on the table for a while now (using existing technology), so it's just a matter of getting people to actually want to explore what humanity can become. A tough task no doubt.

Charlie

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Rombuu]

Yeah, that number raises the old bullshit flag with me as well. The cost of the Apollo budget over the years 62 - 73 was around 20 Billion in nomial dollars. Factor in inflation since then and you get something more like $40 Billion in todays dollars. Granted, there were 7 attempted moon landing during the Apollo missions, plus 4 manned test flights, plus the Apollo 1 disaster, but still... I think they'd be lucky to get to the moon and back for $20 Billion today...

Interesting bit of nostalgia

[The Wooden Badger]

I had a science teacher in middle school (about 1986) that thought the Russians would try this in three years (1989ish if you're not counting). Well, she was only off by 25 years. I guess that's why she was in the minor leagues.

Mars Direct

[cybrpnk2]

Anybody interested in a Mars mission would do well to use as a starting point Zubrin's Mars Direct plan...

Re:Mars Direct

[XNormal]

I'm pretty sure they do. That's why their estimate is closer to Zubrin's estimates ($20-$30 billion) than to NASA's ($450 billion).

Unfortunately...

[i1984]

I don't think the current political climate in the US would allow any such mission to take place. People are not interested in space exploration right now. I don't think it's beyond technical abilities, but as soon as you start talking about tens of billions of dollars, it turns people off.

A sensible approach to space exploration might be to set up a moon base near the south pole. It would be a fantastic research, mining, and launch platform for future space missions (actually, it might be better to launch from elsewhere on the Moon, but the availability of fuel could be a more important consideration than simple location). Fuel could be mined from water there, and it would be easier and less expensive than a jump straight to Mars. A permanent moon base would be the first step for humanity in to the rest of the solar system.

Of course, even this is would require more political capital than we'll be able to dig up in the US in the forseable future. There is an end to America's myopic vision!

As for the article, it is pointed out this isn't a formal proposal. The article takes a negative tone on the whole thing, going to great pains to gratuitously mention an ancient Soviet launch failure which resulted in "contamination." I suppose it's not safe to let preexisting negative sentiment work by itself -- better rub in past failures!

That's all aside to the ludicrous notion that Russia could provide 30% of the funding. Note to Russians: it'll be harder to get NASA to agree on a tourist package for a Mars mission...

I do, however, remain hopeful that someday we'll recognize that promise of opening a frontier in to space...but I doubt I'll ever get to see that day.

Re:Unfortunately...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your so right. The US economy is 25X larger than the Russian economy, plus Russia has 1/2 as many people. Yet they have a vision for space and all we can think about is whether or not it is profitable or politically wise. This "unique" American way of looking at things, is why a lot of Europeans hate us. Americans like to think they are risk taker, but the truth is we aren't.

Wow

[teslatug]

They're going to need all the Backstreet Boys, *NSYNC, et al, to sign up for trips to the space station before they can afford that

What is he expecting?

[barista]

"Is there life on Mars? If there is, what kind of life?" Grigoryev said, barely able to suppress his excitement. "This would be historic."

What is he expecting? A Martian Welcome Wagon?

Re:What is he expecting?

[Lordfly]

Perhaps he heard about the exciting night life in Mars' nightclubs...

Insert Obligatory *NSYNC Space Reference Here...

[gdyas]

Maybe it could just be like taking that millionaire sponsorship thing to another level. Get Pepsi to chip in as well, to have their logo on everything.

I vote for Britney to go along as fuck toy / mascot.

--I doubt this will happen

[Anonymous Coward]

--I doubt this will happen. Several reasons, primarily world economics. All large nations now (the ones that count) are horribly over extended with the badnews combos of corrupt central banks, fiat money creating, and fractional reserve banking and the current world debt load. You are living in the "good old days now" so enjoy them! Add in population pressures conflicting with predicted oil output and available clean fresh water supply, and, well, a lot of major wars within 10 to 20 years, it's almost inevitable.

Sorry to throw a bummer on it, but thems the facts now. I spend a bit more time on international politics and economics then I do on geek-tech. It pays off a lot of times.

Second is boring old technological data vis a vis "humans". Radiation outside the van allen belt is too severe for long term human living, one of the main reasons there isn't even a small moon colony now. We have no adequate shielding technology. the cost/weight differential is staggering. We shielded the apollo astronatus with nothing, they judged short term exposure was an acceptable risk, and they knew even those small time limit exposures were probably bad news. Astronatus have a mindset that doesn't care that much, but when it gets to be many months and years-nope, ain't happening. There was PLENTY of interest after apollo, the war was winding down freeing up the cash for it, but the scientists and higher ups nixed it, because of the biological effects. they switched to near earth work, because it's the onlkyarea humans can hang out at for any length of time

Naw, this "mars mission" is another of a long list of scams the russians have pulled to suck free R&D from the west that can be turned into cheap military advantage. They've (russia anyway) done it since the 19 teens. Russia and China both do it. It's always been a very profitable "business" with them. It's a total scam, but they are so used to having their scams work they keep doing them, because the west is stoopid, it's business leaders and politicians all out for the short term score and buck and can't think past 6 months into the future, if that, and they will hand them the planet eventually.

This article is about war plans, mars is just the bait they use. Russia will use a figure like 'we will spend 30 billion". they will maybe spend 1 billion and screw around a lot, at the same time get 50 billion in advanced R&D. Think about it some, you'll see this makes sense. it's how they got their nuke bombs, first decent rockets, computers, etc. Stole/bought them. Yes, they innovate, but they don't hesitate to steal either, and lie like a cheap rug.

"Space" is the high ground, never ever forget this point, it's ALWAYS been about military advantage, every country involved with space.

Civilian and scientific/academic reasons are secondary and tertiary to it's military potential.

Space race part 2

[incom]

It may even actually get done if America steps up and announces plans of their own.

and the U.S. will end up paying for it

[Trepidity]

If the ISS is an indicator, Russia will ante up a ridiculously small portion of what it's committed to, and the U.S. will pay for the rest.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

Its not as though that much of the rocket fuel would get burned in the atmosphere.

As if we needed any more carbon dioxide than we already have. Each shuttle SRB produces many millions of SUV-miles worth of CO2. Please, please trust me on this one.

Here's the walk-through for the critical path-impaired:

1. Find extrasolar terrestrial planets.
   
2. Build generation starship.
   
3. Put it in local planetary orbits to try it out.
   
4. Send it on its generational mission to colonize nonlocal planet(s).

Trying to terraform without alternate targets would bee foolhardy. The worst that could happen is far worse than doing nothing until you can make it to another liquid-water planet. There is enough water around to make such planets likely, but we need to actually find them before we know for sure.

I recoommend scraping all manned Moon and Mars projects, and concentrating on stellar occluding, spectrographic, and interferrometric telescopes.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pbs.org/saf/transcripts/transcript902.h tm

ALAN ALDA (Narration) It's the rocket's fuel that for Bob opens up the possibility of a small, cheap Mars mission.

BOB ZUBRIN: This is the lab where we have the machine that can make rocket propellant on Mars. Here it is. The carbon dioxide from the Martian atmosphere comes in here, goes down into a reactor here which is something just the size of this, where it reacts with some hydrogen that you've brought from Earth, to turn into carbon monoxide and water.

ALAN ALDA (Narration) Out the other end you get rocket fuel and many other useful chemicals. And it all happens on Mars.

BOB ZUBRIN: This is a general purpose Martian still. It makes oxygen, water, methane, methanol, kerosene, ethylene, anything you want.

ALAN ALDA This is going to affect the whole cost of the mission, won't it? What will that effect be?

Re:Starving Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

feeding starving Americans

And when you look at the _SIZE_ of the "starving Americans"....lordy me, you know that must be expensive. We need another crate of Big Macs over here, this one's under 250 lbs.

When it becomes the matter of principle ..

[apankrat]

.. they will find full 6 billion and much more. Most likely it will get financed as a defence program, and given current state of affairs and changed internal priorities, I'm sure money will be there on time.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick a response (1 or 2):

1.) You are joking
Response: Whoppeeee!

2.) You actually believe what you wrote.
Response: What the hell's wrong with your grasp of reality?

One way trip

[Afrosheen]

The best way to do this is to make it a one-way trip. Anyone who gets on the ship should be well aware they're not coming back. That'd cut costs significantly. Look at it this way: if we send old people, depressed people, whatever, people predisposed to not living for many more years, well, what's the loss? For the old folks it'll be the greatest time of their lives. For the depressed, hell it may even cheer them up but they'll get depressed when they realize they're never coming back and probably off themselves.

The trick is guaranteeing the depressed people don't kill themselves too soon and get some research work done. The old folks will probably feel better in zero G (arthritis may not bother your without gravity) and I believe their hearts will do well also. No worries there.

"Mommy where's grampa?"

"He went to Mars honey, he won't be coming back."

"Where's Mars?"

"It's that reddish star right-over-there."
Beats the hell out of saying grampa went to heaven, after all.

Re:One way trip

[anarkhos]

If you want to save costs, cremate them first.

Re:One way trip

[twisted_pickle]

The old folks will probably feel better in zero G (arthritis may not bother your without gravity) and I believe their hearts will do well also.

Dwelling in low-g for an extended period of time will cause many bad side-effects too, such as decreased bone density. Senior citizens are already frail in that respect, so they might not be the best candidates...

On the other hand, there may be ways to combat this.

Re:One way trip

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the title, "Good Vibrations", that picture is really funny--it looks like the guy is holding a big vibrator (actually, it's some kind of suspenders).

Re:One way trip

[packeteer]

the problem with this is that the people who DO go in spaceships must be in top physical health... if someone has the flu they might not get to go... unfortunaly leaving someone behind in space seems to be a convenient way to deal with the return flight its not a very realistic one... nice thought (well not THAT nice) but sorry it wont work...

Space shuttle isn't the cheapest launch vehicle

[Goonie]

The Russians can launch stuff into space much cheaper than the US can (mostly 'cause labour is cheaper over there), and the shuttle is a shitty vehicle for launching bulk stuff into orbit (you have to cart people and all their life support equipment).

Shit, for the purpose of the exercise we could build Saturn V's, or the Russians could build their 200-ton booster design they had on the drawing board.

As for the minimum mass you need to do the mission, you're probably right, but even so the transportation costs with the shuttle are horribly inflated.

Re:Space shuttle isn't the cheapest launch vehicle

[Jeremiah Blatz]

Shit, for the purpose of the exercise we could build Saturn V's, or the Russians could build their 200-ton booster design they had on the drawing board.

Actually, building saturn V's is not nearly as straightforward as one might expect. They tossed the moulds, the spare parts, pretty much everything. We'd pretty much be starting from scratch. Besides, NASA seems to have some big troubles making launch vehicles. Seems you need a real, scary arms race to cut through the political BS associated with today's aerospace contractors.

Re:Space shuttle isn't the cheapest launch vehicle

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

IIRC though, there are actually a couple of those Russian Energia boosters at Baikonur that they were going to use for their shuttle program before the old Soyuz Sovietski fell apart. Probably not in great shape, but they were an impressive design from what I remember.

The original Energia (pre-Buran modifications) could be quite useful. I'd still recommend building NEW ones rather than relying on boosters that have been in storage for ~20 years, but it might be better than trying to rebuild Saturn V designs.

Re:Space shuttle isn't the cheapest launch vehicle

[sconeu]

I don't think we CAN build Saturn Vs anymore. IIRC, all the plans and tools were destroyed (to ensure that we used the Shuttle).
</PARANOID-CONSPIRACY-THEORY>

Re:Space shuttle isn't the cheapest launch vehicle

[cmowire]

Bullshit.

The Saturn V blueprints are still in NASA repositories, safe for historical documentation and such.

We *can't* build new Saturn V boosters because all of the plants have either been knocked down or retooled to support the shuttle. The launch pads that used to launch Saturns now launch Shuttles, and all of the support machinery has changed over.

Many many many of the parts for the Saturn V you can't get anymore.

It is cheaper and less trouble to build a new booster than it is to resurect a 40 year old design.

Why not be positive about this?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Why is it that whenever there's a story mentioning Russia on /. that every patronising, xenophobic AC thinks that it's his patriotic duty to post some negative "reds-under-the-bed, they're-still-commie-bastards, huh-they're-all-drunk-on-vodka" comment?

Some simple facts for the uneducated:

1. Russia has the know-how.

Russia still has more experience of manned space flight than everyone else put together, in terms of both man hours and missions. During the 80's and 90's, when NASA shuttle launches were red letter days, the Russian space agency was putting up cosmonauts as often as they wanted to.

2. Mir, the Russian space station, was the best permenant orbiting platform ever built.

Laugh all you want, but it was a damn sight more sucessful than Skylab, NASA's 70's project. Yes, Mir's final few years were dogged by near-disasters but virtually all of those could be traced back to some bean counter cutting back the budget here and there - the technology, engineering and science wasn't to blame.

Mir was in use way past it's planned retirement date, and was the first true permenantly manned space station. A great deal of the ISS's design is based on the lessons (good and bad) learnt from Mir.

3. Going to the moon was a competitive race. Going to Mars will be a collective journey.

This isn't a road trip we're talking about. It's a voyage.

NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.

Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.

Politically, economically and scientifically, there are many reasons why such an endeavour will be one of cooperation rather than competition. As much as anything else, a Mars mission will be used to foster closer relationships between the US, Europe and Russia.

(And, before you mod this down as a troll, re-read what I've written. It makes sense. Which is more than can be said about many of the posts so far.)

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

you, sir, are a communist and a hippie.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Caveat: Your fundamental point that the Russians rule utterly is well taken. They do indeed so rule. Look at the Trans-Siberian Railway, for Pete's sake. Makes the mighty Union Pacific look like HO.

Anyway...

NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.
Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.

Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[stinky wizzleteats]

I agree with your conclusions, but I question some of your statements.

Russia has the know-how.

While not necessarily incorrect on its face, the exclusive connotations of this statement just don't stand up to the facts. Your following comments seemed to suggest that you equated this to man-hours in space, but there's more to space travel than humans in pressurized capsules for extended periods of time. The United States has always had the technological edge in virtually every element of spacecraft design, construction, and operation. The United States has also been the only nation to successfully navigate a manned spacecraft beyond the orbit of the Earth. I know the "but we landed on the moon" argument has been probably heard so much that the actual technical details of that acheivement are lost, but the fact remains that it was an amazing accomplishment which did in fact far exceed the capabilities of the Soviet space program. The Russians will be bringing knowledge and experience, no doubt, but to suggest that "they have the know-how", as if this were an exclusionary state, is a disservice to what NASA has accomplished.

I do agree, however, that the Russian contribution to the project is pivotal. The Russians have always excelled at solving complex problems with simple, cheap, and reliable solutions. The famous "write with pencils in zero G" thing is a good example (we spent millions coming up with pens which could write in a microgravity environment). In the days of decreasing budgets we now face, such simple ingenuity could make the difference between whether or not we ever make the attempt, but we won't be getting there with the N1 or Buran.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[sconeu]

The famous "write with pencils in zero G" thing is a good example (we spent millions coming up with pens which could write in a microgravity environment).

That's an urban legend.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[cheezehead]

Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical?

Says who?? That's the part I don't understand. $20 billion is a lot of money to you and me, but not to a lot of countries. The US can afford to build $5 billion submarines (and $200 million fighter planes). The US can afford to build a $60 billion missile defense that has a snowball's chance in hell of working. The JSF program is going to cost anywhere between $200 billion and $1 trillion. Granted, the cost are going to be distributed over many years, but you could do that with a Mars mission as well.

Now, let's not point the finger at the US alone. Many European countries (or Japan) could actually afford a Mars mission, if they really wanted to. Maybe the Russians would have trouble financing it, but if they don't need hard currency (i.e. if they could pay for it in rubles), they might just pull it off.

What is lacking is the political will. Like many posters pointed out, in the 60s there was a prestige aspect to the moon race (cold war, JFK, etc.). We're in a different situation right now, it is hard to convince the public that this is a good idea, especially since the payoff is going to be mostly scientific in nature.

...but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years...

Err, no, not even close to that. Let's look at some CIA data for the GDP of a few countries :

USA: $9.963 trillion
Japan: $3.15 trillion
South Korea: $764.6 billion
Russia: $1.12 trillion
United Kingdom: $1.36 trillion
France: $1.448 trillion
Netherlands: $388.4 billion
Germany: $1.936 trillion
Australia: $445.8 billion

I could go on and on. Remember that these are annual numbers. My point is that even small countries could fund this, given the political will. The US or Europe could easily pay for it by themselves. $20 billion is just a drop in the bucket.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[nusuth]

Russia no logner has space facilities or manpower for such an undertaking. Most Russian engineers working on space projects have jobs elsewhere now, already retired or immigrated to western countries. Also Russian space program had a very good vision in the 60ties but since then it has been in a constant decline. MIR and almost all other other Russian success stories are rooted in that era of Soviet space program. Assuming they can find the money, they will have to restart planning about space, reaccumulate the manpower and build new space facilities before they can do anything significant.

I sincerly hope they prove me wrong; I want to see people on Mars before I die and I have no hope for a NASA or an ESA mission. NASA and American public in general lost the magic in manned space missions. ESA has almost no experience in manned missions and the way they plan things, this won't change soon. China has the money and determination. It is a matter of time before they have the technology. I guess our best bet is primarily a Chineese mission in 2030ties.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[fegu]

This kind of comment makes me frustrated. Had it actually been 5% of the world GDP for 10 years I _might_ consider waiting but $20 billion is nothing compared to the money we spend on the olympics, footbal championships and other major sporting events in this timeframe. A movie will earn it's cost from the box offices, but the olympics is 99% advertising.

To dip into this pool of money we should do as one poster suggested: get Pepsi, Britney, Hollywood and even countries to sponsor and get their logo on the side (yep, the US will have to pay big time to have their flag on the side this time :).

It will totally rule to have your logo in every history book for the foreseeable future and it will be a great way to show our grandchildren our ridiculous way of organizing the world's wealth :)

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[isorox]

Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years

How much cash does Bill Gates - thats one man - have?

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[simong_oz]

Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years.

At the height of the Apollo program, it was costing every US taxpayer about 40c per day. That's simply staggering when you think about it.

At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?

The 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' argument I guess?? And one we could probably debate about forever. I don't think such a massive step like going to Mars (as was circumnavigating the world, and going to the moon at the time) will ever make sense, particularly financially.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[ArsSineArtificio]

...but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years...

That is not what the original post said, which perhaps you would have ascertained had you read it. The original quotation was:

"Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?"

To read, scan eyes back and forth along line of text at preferred speed. Repeat until comprehension occurs.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[foxtrot]

3. Going to the moon was a competitive race. Going to Mars will be a collective journey.

That's exactly the problem. On 3 October, 1957, nothing Man had ever built had be placed in Space. On 20 July 1969, Man first set foot on the moon. Just shy of a dozen years from "Hm, maybe there's Space out there" to "Tranquility base here. The Eagle has landed."

Today, there is a space station in orbit and we have shuttle flights to it few months. Twelve years ago... there was a space station in orbit and there were Soyuz flights to it every few months. Wow, now that's cooperative progress!

Add to that that man hasn't set foot on the moon at all in that time-- or in the twelve years previous to that, either. What, is there nothing more to learn on the moon?

It sounds good on paper and even better on Star Trek, but so far, humanity's track record with space exploration as anything other than "My god we can't let the Reds do that first!" hasn't been exactly stellar. Humans, it seems, are at their best when they compete.
-JDF

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Vagary]

Don't space programs tend to be good investments? The technology gained by Cold War launches easily paid for the expenditure.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[SpinyNorman]

The Russians not only landed on the moon, but explored it with their unamnned "lunakhod" rovers, and also brought back rock samples (all unmanned).

While the US pisses away 1/2 billion at a time to put up shuttles, the entire Russian space budget is 120 million, and yet they are the ones who are sending up unmanned supply craft every few months to keep ISS operating.

If it's a matter of getting a job done in space then I'd bet on Russia. If it's a matter of pissing away huge sums of money for little benefit then the US is light years ahead.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we know have intercontinental nukes. Great for the whole family.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Tablizer]

(* Why is it that whenever there's a story mentioning Russia on /. that every patronising, xenophobic AC thinks that it's his patriotic duty to post some negative......huh-they're-all-drunk-on-vodka" comment? *)

Because that makes a more interesting stereotype than the rigid, boring hyper-trained astronauts of reality.

(* Politically, economically and scientifically, there are many reasons why such an endeavour will be one of cooperation rather than competition. As much as anything else, a Mars mission will be used to foster closer relationships between the US, Europe and Russia. *)

Most likely the result will be massive *bickering* over who blew the budget. Everybody is gonna want some Vodka when the fit hits the shan.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[guybarr]

I don't think such a massive step like going to Mars ... will ever make sense, particularly financially.

but mining the asteroid belt to create SPS (solar power satellites) energy solution actually makes a LOT of financial sense, and once you'll have the transportation means for the AB, mars voyage will be much closer.

this is why I'm against a human-mission to mars at this time. let's build a space oriented buisness first, the science will be orders of magnitude cheaper afterwards.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[guybarr]

The technology gained by Cold War launches easily paid for the expenditure

have you any analysis to back this claim ? my estimate is the US and USSR have invested quite a lot of man-millenia (and of technical personnel, not just general workers) in the arms race. how much more advanced would we be today if, say, 10% of this effort would have gone to non-military scientific and technological research ?

no-one can answer this, but claiming that the secondary gains of the arms race are greater than the potential gains from the same investment directly into research seems doubious to me.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty damned insightful. Well, it has actually all been said before in one context or another, but it's a fine point. To the people who say shouldn't we be feeding the poor with that money, we could argue that furthering science and exploration does more to advance humanity than all of the entertainment that we spend billions, and billions of the Rock's dollars on every year. If the Mars mission is successful, it would easily be more valuable than most of the advertising that is done. I read that a 30 second spot during the Super Bowl costs two million dollars, and that is seen by 40% of American households, if they aren't getting up to go to the bathroom, for just 30 seconds. The Mars ship would be plastered all over the news for years if the mission is a success. Think of the advertising opportunities on the mission's web site, and the reality based television program they could launch with the ship.

I don't know much about economics, but at some point, isn't wealth created through value added products? How do we know that stretching out to create a Mars spaceship and launch an international mission to the planet isn't going to actually create some amount of new wealth for the countries involved. That money goes somewhere, it isn't set on fire. Presumably, it creates high paying jobs for scientists and engineers (rather than athletes and contrived pop singers). Investors in the firms who hold the contracts for building the ship will make money, pay taxes, buy Pepsi, etc.

Perhaps what is needed is a marketing campaign to promote the mission. Then taxpayers may be lest resistant, and businesses may come around to the idea of sponsoring the trip.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.

$20 billion spread out over 13 years is pocket change. That's just over $1.5 billion per year. Many private corporations make more than that in profits. Microsoft could finance the entire mission right now using nothing but cash on hand!

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Saeger]

I'm in 98% agreement friend. I think that just about ANY manned-mission is a waste of resources at this point, but that's what it takes to get human-centric people interested. Who cares about robots afterall (until we become them)?

We should wait at least 10 years for the first (and easiest) fruits of nanotechnology to emerge: fantastic materials. If we waited another few years we wouldn't even have to waste the space necessary to hydroponically grow food aboard ship, we could just "assemble it", and anything else, as needed, from base molecules.

--

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[shimmin]

The case might be made that the Apollo Project was largely responsible for funding production capacity, industrial research, personnel development, etc. for the American electronics industry for a good chunk of the 1960's. And seriously, can any technological trend of the last 30 years of the 20th century claim to be as prominent as the increasing ubiquity of the digital computer?

Similarly, the technologies that would make a manned presence on Mars feasible (photovoltaics, semi-autonomous factories, improved materials) are not exactly useless on Earth.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[cheezehead]

Well, I actually had read that ("Supposing", etc.). I didn't want to critcize the original post unfairly. My point was that everybody seems to accept blindly that one country could not afford a Mars mission, and I was merely challenging that. The original (hypothetical) example is interesting, and I agree that at such costs it probably would not be a wise thing to do. However, the hypothetical example is orders of magnitude larger than a realistic figure.

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are wrong. The US is best when they compete, the russians does not need competition. The primary reason that we still are stuck with "only" a spacestation, was that the soviet fell, would the soviet not have fell, there would probably be a much higher human presence in space by now..

Just look att everything the soviet managed to do - WITHOUT competition.. ..or just look at everything man can do by cooperating; linux, local LANs, cooperative-markets (here in sweden the largest supermarket-chain - KF - is a coperative, not a corporation).

Man kan do great things under competition, but can do much much more when cooperating.

I say that patents, money, the economic system, etc, is not good for humanity in the long run..

Re:Why not be positive about this?

[stinky wizzleteats]

The Russians not only landed on the moon, but explored it with their unamnned "lunakhod" rovers, and also brought back rock samples (all unmanned).

Here's a good case in point of the differences between the US and Russian space programs. The Russian(Soviet) program, was, from a scientific perspective, smoke and mirrors. Luna 16 landed in 1970 and recovered 110 grams of lunar soil. By that time, Apollo 11 and 12 had recovered a total of 56000 grams of lunar material, and geologically trained Apollo 15 astronauts were able to find and recover the famous "genesis rock" - a feat beyond even today's robotic vehicles.

So the response to your point would be that it all depends on what job you want done. If you want a handful of dirt, the Russians have the technology. If you want geological findings which shape the way we understand the formation of the solar system, the US has the technology. The approaches are different, and the goals are different. Putting crap in Earth orbit is 50 year old technology. The Russians have it down pat. But they could not have put something like Hubble in orbit, nor maintained and updated it through the years as the US has done, with R7 boosters and Soyuz spacecraft.

In summary, then, the legacy of the Russian space program can be found largely in the Guinness Book of World records and in impact craters in the Siberian countryside, and that of the US program consists of items such as the genesis rock, and photos of IO volcanoes, the eagle nebula, etc.

The Russians are certainly capable spacefarers, and I welcome their participation in future exploration efforts, but that doesn't mean we need to rewrite history in our exuberance to work with them.

That's Mars Direct

[Goonie]

As will undoubtedly be mentioned multiple times on this discussion, that's Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan, and the concept of making the fuel there for the return trip seems to be the only vaguely sane way to do things.

Re:That's Mars Direct

[MtViewGuy]

Actually, with the fact there is plenty of water under the surface of Mars itself, this means the very possibility of making liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen and liquid methane for rocket fuel cheaply at Mars becomes a reality. That could mean the Mars Direct space vehicles could become larger than originally envisioned at least for the return vehicles.

Re:That's Mars Direct

[term0r]

This is the concept that the Russians used in Arthur C Clarkes 2010. The only problem was that there was some angry Europans there who decided to demolish the ship.

Arthur C Clarke had a few other correct predictions in his novels, maybe the Russians should take heed.

And they will...

[anarkhos]

COLLECT ROCKS!!!

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

capacitor, goof ball

Well

[gotak]

Micorsoft should fund part of this.

"Where do you want to go today?" answer= MARS!

Re:Starving Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Eurotrash comment.

Russians in Space with Bill

[BigBlockMopar]

It's a great thing, this quest. Someone needs to do it, and it's likely that Russia is the best candidate because they'll need financial help...

Well, there's the problem. I'm all for space exploration, because there are many intellectual, scientific and national pride benefits to this pursuit.

But this seems to me to be the nation-scale equivalent of buying a new E-Class on your credit card while you're still trying to get caught up with the electric bill (and gas bill, and rent, and food, and...).

I think Russians could be better served by spending this money on infrastructure to attract businesses and build employment for their people. Space exploration should probably be the realm of rich nations only. Once they've got their fiscal house in order, I'd love to see the Russians come out and play again.

perhaps we can hitch a ride. This could become the first world-uniting space mission. Other countries could become involved, perhaps the world will come closer to the realization that we're all neighbors.

I thought that's what the International Space Station was for?

Unless, of course, Microsoft 'donates' the system software. In that case...well, there's still China.

I can see the AP wire story now: "In other news, officials at Microsoft say that a kind of error known technically as a 'buffer overrun' was responsible for last year's launch of the manned mission to Mars becoming a manned mission to the sun. Mr. Gates himself blamed the problem on catering to obsolete open standards."

Re:Russians in Space with Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misunderstand Russia's intentions slightly. There's certainly a "We can do it, still! See!" aspect, I think the real purpose of their plan is to boost their economy. If you look at the ISS, the U.S. has had to bail out Russia, financially, for more or less all of the construction Russia is responsible for. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Russia sell seats on a mission to Mars to "tourists" in the class of the uber wealthy.

Re:Russians in Space with Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

You think a tourist will be the first to mars? no, we may place tourists on the moon some day maybe, but I really doubt they will be on the _first_ mission to mars.

You are a complete idiot - excuse my words

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read some background info before talking about things you dont have any clue about. Unlike NASA, Russian Space Agency had a focus on crew security since 197x launch accident. Result - no direct fatalities in Space Program since then. Go read some google.

bad starting point

[jelle]

First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.

If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.

this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.

(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).

Re:bad starting point

[Graymalkin]

Launching an interplanetary mission from the ISS isn't going to happen. The ISS has a steep incline to its orbit (51.6 degrees to the equator) which makes it useless as a launch platform for planetary missions. Originally Freedom which became the ISS was meant to only have a inclination of 28 degrees which is a good orbit for the STS to be able to service the station but also not a terrible orbit to launch planetary missions from.

The only reason the damn thing has such an inclined orbit is so it can be services by Soyuz rockets from Baikonur as well as the STS. Unfortunately the STS has a rough time making it into the ISS' orbit because it doesn't get a easterly boost from the Earth's rotation because it is launching itself so steeply northward to hit the ISS. This steep incline also prevents you from launching planetary missions because you don't get a boost from your orbit around the Earth and any boost you get from the Earth's solar orbit is reduced by the fact you've got to spend a shitload of energy getting into a Hohmann transfer orbit.

One of the reasons Skylab was scrapped was its orbit was not very easy for the STS (then in develpement to be an adjuct system to a space station) to hit. Freedom was planned as a replacement for Skylab and eventually as an orbital assembly facility for future Mars missions. The original design for Freedom made it a great match for the whole STS project because it fit the capabilites of the STS well. The HST has a 28 degree inclined orbit specifically so the STS can support it effectively. The ISS is a complete failure as an orbital assembly facility of any sort, especially for planetary missions.

Re:bad starting point

[lunaman]

Unfortunately the STS has a rough time making it into the ISS' orbit because it doesn't get a easterly boost from the Earth's rotation because it is launching itself so steeply northward to hit the ISS.

Not true. It is no more difficult for STS to achieve the ISS's orbit from Canaveral than it is for Soyuz to achieve the same orbit from Baikonur. The easterly vector provided by Canaveral's latitude (1337 ft/s) is much less than the easterly vector required to insert the ISS orbit, and is thus helpful. In fact Baikonur (45.6 deg N) pays a significant penalty compared to Canaveral (28.5 deg N) in reaching that orbit. The problem is the additional northerly vector that's required. But launching into a high-inclination orbit always incurs a penalty compared to minimal-inclination orbit (equal to your latitude) -- so STS can't launch nearly as much into 51.6 deg as it can into 28.5 deg.

Yes, the 51.6 deg inclination was selected so that the Russians could launch to it from Baikonur, though another argument made for it is that it's better for earth observation.

One of the reasons Skylab was scrapped was its orbit was not very easy for the STS (then in develpement to be an adjuct system to a space station) to hit.

No. Skylab was scrapped because STS didn't get off the ground until 2 years after Skylab's ashes were scattered over Australia. NASA had plans to try to reboost Skylab on one of the earliest shuttle flights, but STS was delayed and simultaneously the predictions of atmospheric drag were incorrect due to high solar activity (which expanded the atmosphere.)

Now, Skylab wouldn't have been a walk in the park to use -- it wasn't really designed for on-orbit servicing and resupply -- but it could have been useful, if only to study the effects of long-term exposure to the space environment. It's true that its 50 degree inclination orbit would not have been as good for STS as 28.5.

Jim Oberg wrote an interesting article about the fate of Skylab... and yes, he says that the 50 degree inclination was a mark against Skylab, but not a fatal one.

I bet they do it, we don't....

[ImaLamer]

I quoted this book about the Japanese "cool stuff" story.

Space could provide a new rain of resources, or it could bankrupt us. But its habitation does offer two other advantages.
The first: internation cooperation. No single nation can afford the price of extraterrestial development. To turn the wastelands of asteroids and planets into lands of plenty would involve consortia including Russia, Europe, and Japan. Those partnerships are already under development, though too often we are not involved in them. ... ... ...
-Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle (Chapter:Tennis Time And The Mental Clock)

We are already getting behind, and space could be the one thing that would bring this planet's superpowers together.

Another quote:

The second, and perhaps more important advantage of following in the footsteps of Captain Kirk: man has as yet invented no way to prevent war. We have found no method for shaking the consequences of our biological curse, our animal brain's addiction to violence. We cannot free ourselves from our nature as cells in a superorganismic beast constantly driven to pecking order tournaments with its neighbors. We have found no technique for evading the fact that those competitions are all too often deadly."
-Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle (Chapter:Tennis Time And The Mental Clock)

Either a threat of thermonuclear war (as Sagan, Erhard, B.Fuller thought) will bring us together or space exploration will.

Simply the bigger picture is that this is the bigger picture.

It is our destiny to return to space, the place from which we came when we were just particles....

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[anarkhos]

Good grief, at least get the pollution right!

The problem with launching things into space is it damages the ozone layer!

Pth, you global warming fanatics are a threat to our environment!

Sounds more like a laundering scheme to me

[xagon7]

...and an opportunity to revitalize their economy. Actually I don't think it would be to bad for the WORLD economy. But there are far to many holes in the seive that it seems much of the money MAY go unaccounted for? I hope not, and I hope this is sincere.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[iamblades]

Extrasolar travel just is NOT going to happen for several hundred years though. The technology is not around.

I really do hope we come up with an alternative to rockets soon. Rockets are expensive and messy. That said, we shouldn't stop launching rockets into space b ecause they release a small (relative) amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. I do think that we should do something useful when we get up there though.

Going to the moon and bringing back rocks is not good. We shouldn't go to the mooon again unless we plan to stay a while or use it as a stepping stone. It just isn't worth it, and mars won't be worth more than 1-2 trips either.

IMO, they should send a few more probes to mars to see how viable a colony would be there, and then we should set up at least a semi-permanent colony, not just do some lousy touch and go so we can say we were first...

Setlements

[barista]

/--rant

Actually, there were a lot of settlements in the North American interior prior to 1800. I'm not talking about the Native Americans (although they are included as well). Santa Fe existed before the Pilgrims ever thought about coming to the "New World". Of course, I guess it all depends on how you define "settlement".

/--end rant

At any rate, I agree. Even if anyone gets to Mars, it would be a long time before anybody decided to settle there. No one has done anything with the Moon yet, and we went there 30 years ago. Mars is further away, so it stands to reason that the cost of settling there would be that much higher. Still...gotta love Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles.



btw, I lived in Colorado for over 20 years. I always thought it a bit strange that the pop-culture history pretends that the "Old West" didn't start until the 1800's.

Re:Setlements

[tftp]

it stands to reason that the cost of settling there would be that much higher.

Not necessarily. Mars is better for humans. It has atmosphere (not much but still better than nothing); it will protect the surface from meterorites and space dust. On Moon there is no atmosphere, and you can be killed by a grain of sand sailing through you at 10 km/s. The atmosphere is non-corrosive (95% CO2). There is plenty of water on Mars (and not much - on the Moon).

Temperature on Moon is extreme, from very cold to very hot. On Mars, however, the temperature is more smooth, and averages -63 degrees Celsius - this is what we have at Arctic and Antarctic research stations.

Presence of atmosphere will help Martian colonists because they can use lighter, simpler spacesuits instead of vacuum ones that are necessary on Moon.

Neither Mars nor Moon have planetary magnetic fields. That is not nice because magnetic field of Earth helps in deflecting the Solar wind. There are regional magnetic spots, but they are not very large.

Mars is farther from Earth, true, but colonists are not going to fly back and forth too often anyway. In many aspects, given the launch system already in place, the cost of launch to Mars can be comparable to the flight to the Moon. The most expensive part is to get started.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[Anonymous Coward]

um...hey genious...what's rocket fuel? H and O....what does the burning of rocket fuel produce? H2O....yeah I'm sure that is really going to harm this planet. Get a grip.

My mars proposal

[Anonymous Coward]

Planet Mars .. will you marry me?

use people with terminal illnesses

[Indy1]

such as cancer or Aids. Before you mod me down, think about it. What BETTER gift could you give to a person who is going to die then to let them make history?

Re:use people with terminal illnesses

[HydroCarbon10]

I can think of one...how about dumping that $20 billion plus the $70 billion that the project will go over-budget into finding a cure.

Re:use people with terminal illnesses

[An Onerous Coward]

Ethical concerns aside, this won't work. Simple reason: These people are crew, not cargo. We could never automate a ship to the extent that no expertise was required. The likelihood of finding a group of terminal patients who just happened to have the necessary skills is infinitesimal. The likelihood that this group would be physically and mentally capable (and were guaranteed to remain so for the entire six month flight) is also miniscule.

I agree, it would be nice to go out with a bang. But it's just not feasible.

Re:use people with terminal illnesses

[Anonymous Coward]

Or lepers? (nice and old testament!)

Oh no - that would be a bad idea, 'cos then we'd end up with all these strange freak-show type people living on Mars, just like in that film with Arnold Schwarzenegger, "strange freak-show type people living on Mars"!

Manic depresives are probably out too - just on the off chance there was intelligent life on Mars; remember when you're meeting with extra terestrial life forms for the first time, FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT!!

I spel as wel as Slasdot duz

[barista]

Make that Settlements

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

Extrasolar travel just is NOT going to happen for several hundred years though.

How do you know unless you build the TPFs to look? It could be as close as Epsilon Eridani.

Until our resolution increases to that level, we will have no way to estimate the amount of time such voyages would take.

A properly done Mars Mission...

[trims]

.. is exactly what NASA needs to revitalize it. Right now, NASA is a massive beauracracy that does everything over-budget, late, and overtly-cautious. It's a typical agency that has outlived it's usefulness, and lost sight of its mission.

Together, Russia and NASA can come up with a good design for a Mars-mission vehicle. Unlike the Space Station (ISS), there are a huge number of unknowns which would have to be dealt with, and consequently, novel innovations for them cooked up (we got a huge amount of cool stuff out of the space program from the 60s, but nothing really interesting in the 80s and 90s). Here's a short list of totally new problems which would need to be solved:

• Cheap (i.e. less than $10 / lbs payload cost) Earth-to-Low-Orbit lift capability (may rockets aren't the right thing here... Maybe giant sling shots, high-speed train jumps, etc).
• Long-term space survial without resupply. Even Mir got a shipment of food/air/spare parts evey month or so. Given that a Earth-Mars mission is about a year or so, we'd need to figure out how to make such a spaceship almost totally self-sufficient.
• Micro-meteoroid and radiation protection. Unlike earth-orbiting stuff and even the Moon mission, a trip to Mars is outside the Van Allen belts, and also away from the Earth's protective Solar Wind profile. Protecting a ship is a whole new ballpark.
• Long-term reliable energy production. Would it be nuclear? Some sort of solar sail? Or what? I'd imagine such a ship would require a substantial fraction of a MegaWatt of electrical power. Where is that coming from?
• Long-term human psychological studies - your crew is away for at least a year. Do you use women? What about personality conflicts? Interpersonal relationships? Dating? Only married couples? The shrinks would love this.

NASA really needs a kick in the pants. Unfortunately, that requires some leadership and real vision from the President, and we haven't had that kind in awhile. They really should relegate the lift capability to private industry and just concentrate on making the Mars ship.

Oh well. Maybe someday...

-Erik

Re:A properly done Mars Mission...

[Skip666Kent]

It would be an old Apollo-era rocket, with a few launched before-hand to ship supplies and automated tools that will immediately start to manufacture fuel for the return voyage and water for the stay. You throw things out there before you go; you don't try to take everything on the one ship that holds the astronauts. Energy production (on Mars) is definately nuclear. The reactor is sent up before-hand. We could do this today.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[HeghmoH]

The shuttle puts out lots of CO2, right. What, exactly, are you smoking?

Let's actually examine this, instead of spewing random statements. We have two engine systems in your average Shuttle, the main engines and the solid rocket boosters.

Main engines burn liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen. Result, mostly water, along with various nitrogen compounds that come from the nitrogen in the air. No carbon products because there's no carbon!

The solid rocket boosters contain ammonium perchlorate, aluminum, iron oxide, a polymer, and an epoxy curing agent. (Source: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts -newsref/srb.html) First three ingredients, no carbon. The last two might have some carbon, but they're not major ingredients (14 percent total), and they're not the fuel, so they probably aren't combining with much oxygen.

Anyway, I hope these facts don't stand in your way too much.

rocket fuel is not just H2 and O2.

[js7a]

The parent comment poster seems unfamiliar with solid rocket fuel.

If there are sources comparing the deleterious effects of rocket fuel on the ozone layer with those involving carbon dioxide, then I would like to read them.

Mod parent up +1 Funny please :-) [nt]

[HydroCarbon10]

nt

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Hays]

a mars mission is by no means 95% fuel unless youre looking at the design present to reagan in the early 80s. We now know we can get all the fuel we need and refine it and store it right on mars.

It mentioned a two ship approach. Presumably the first ship leaves a couple of years earlier and starts filtering oxygen out of the atmosphere and hydrogen out of the ground water/ice and storing it before the manned mission even takes off. Once they know things are looking good they leave and find a fully fueled space ship for their ride back sitting on mars. Its been proposed by Robert Zubrin a thousand times over (though he didnt even assume the hydrogen could be extracted on site, which we now know is possible)

Its not at all unreasonable and its very refreshing to see the Russians having balls where our leaders havent.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

each solid rocket motor weighs approximately 1,100,000 pounds

-- http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts -newsref/srb.html

And this contradicts my claim that each exausts many millions of SUV-equivalent miles in carbon dioxide how?

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[iamblades]

It doesn't matter how close they are, because we wouldn't be able to reach any of them with current technology. The nearest star is years away traveling at light speed. Traveling at current speeds would make that a several hundred year trip most likely. There is no way we can support a crew of astronauts for several hundred years of intrasolar travel.

Where would the fuel for heat come from? There is no way you can launch a couple hundred years worth of fuel up with the rocket, and solar power won't work too well once you get that far out. Food could be grown on board, but even this would be hard with current technology.

Plus, we have no clue what kind of junk is floating around out there.

Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of Dead Steven King /. posts!!!

Fuel cells and solar cells.

[Christopher Thomas]

Maybe NASA will develop a more efficient fuel-cell based power system because it's obviously just not sound to power everything by solar cells.

Fuel cells are a power _storage_ medium, not a power generator.

For a trip that will last more than a year, solar panels will give you a lot more energy than an equivalent weight in hydrogen and oxygen to supply fuel cells.

Of course, the ship would still have fuel cells for temporary power storage (they're lighter than batteries), but power generation for any craft inside the asteroid belt will be solar.

Re:Fuel cells and solar cells.

[Christopher Thomas]

No, fuel cells generate power..from, that's right, fuel! Think of them as doing a very slow burn, but it's done at the chemical level in a way which emits electrons.

a) RFTM. I do indeed mention fuel. By your argument, batteries generate power too (instead of storing it).

b) Calculate how much power a ton of solar cells generates at, say, 200 W/m^2 (for Mars orbit) and 15% efficiency over 400+ days. Now, calculate how much energy is in a ton of hydrogen/oxygen mix (I'm giving you a bonus here, as the storage tanks would be a large fraction of the weight).

See the problem with fuel cells now? Good.

Wow.

[autopr0n]

Rocket fuel is made from frozen hydrogen and oxygen. It produces water vapor. And the majority of it would be burned in space, not in the atomosphere.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

4. ???

5. PROFIT!!!

Why is this Parent Post Moderated as Flamebait????

[Anonymous Coward]

-10 to who is "playing" moderator

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[HeghmoH]

Um. Because it doesn't actually put out any carbon dioxide?

TIme for a clue

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush has been gutting our program. He killed the X-34 (I am guessing that he moved the technology into the military). He has slowly killed the ISS. Too be honest, it was a huge mistake from the gitco. Raygun, bush, and clinton have all screwed the puch on that one. They should have counted on doing an assembly line approach and using simple construction. Instead, every single peice is hand-built. What a mess.
As to china, get a clue. They will have somebody in space within 16 months. They will then have somebody on the moon within 48 months. They have a very ambitious program.BTW, they have the ability to use our (and russian, europe) research for most of what they are doing, only perfecting them after the fact. Think of our Shuttle, which the russians stole from Rayguns admin and then improved on. The engines went into the booster, which allows them to have a true heavy lift vehicle.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

There is no way we can support a crew of astronauts for several hundred years of intrasolar travel. Where would the fuel for heat come from?

Codeposition fusion.

Plus, we have no clue what kind of junk is floating around out there.

Yes we do; it's called dark matter, and there's not enough the endanger ships at generation starship speeds.

It was different when they were cummunist

[Anonymous Coward]

The "space race" to the moon had more to do with the cold war than anything else. We wanted to demonstrate that democracy was a better form of government. Now that the russian government is like ours, its not that big of a deal. Now if China tries, whole different story.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

At thermite temperatures, all the carbon in the glue burns, and given that most of the fuel is an oxidant, what do you think it burns with?

Men are from Mars....

[borgasm]

The Russians should swing by Venus as well and pick up some of those women I've heard about.

There must be adequate demand in the Slashdot community.

Re:Men are from Mars....

[Anonymous Coward]

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venis, and Children are from hell...

A viable alternative...

[caesar79]

is to just pay me a million and let me day dream :D

Rocket fuel is NOT frozen gasses

[js7a]

Some (very little) rocket fuel is LH2 and LO2. None is solid H2 or solid O2.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[HeghmoH]

I said it was negligible. Now I'll back it up with numbers.

First, we need a number for CO2 output from the SRBs. This is hard since we don't know what exactly the makeup is of this 14% of the fuel that could be carbon-bearing. Let's assume that at the end, an amount of CO2 equal to 14% of the fuel weight gets created. That gives us 1100000*0.14 = 154000lbs of CO2. Now, according to http://www.psr.org/news-apr99.htm, one gallon of gasoline gives us 26 pounds of CO2. So, 154000/26 = 5923 gallons of gasoline burned. Assume your SUV gets 14 miles to the gallon, and you have an SRB output of 423 miles' worth of SUV CO2. Don't forget to multiply by two, since there's two SRB's per shuttle, and we get 846 miles.

Compare 846 miles with "many millions of SUV-equivalent miles". I think I can confidently state that you're utterly, dead wrong.

Not exactly

[XNormal]

A NASA engineer and his manager were asked to estimate the chances of failure of a critical component in the shuttle engine. This was a component that could cause loss of vessel and crew if it failed.

The engineer and manager's estimates differed by two orders of magnitude.

You're right. There is a difference in the approach to risk between NASA and the russians. I believe their managers are not that far out of touch with reality. They accept the fact that space exploration is dangerous and spend more of their time preventing the next disaster than covering their asses. I am sure that russian engineers and managers have just as much respect for human life as americans and they do their best to ensure the safety of their cosmonauts within the costraints imposed by physics, engineering and, let's face it, budgets.

Safety reports spanning millions of pages printed on tons of dead trees do not make a system safe. They just help managers to live in denial.

Re:Not exactly

[Happy go Lucky]

A NASA engineer and his manager were asked to estimate the chances of failure of a critical component in the shuttle engine. This was a component that could cause loss of vessel and crew if it failed.

The engineer and manager's estimates differed by two orders of magnitude.

Just to source this: _What Do You Care What Other People Think?_ by Prof. Richard Feynman. It should still be in print.

Feynman was part of the Presidential Commission charged with investigating the Challenger explosion. One thing he did (unusual for a blue-ribbon panel, but utterly essential for any detailed investigation of anything at all) was to actually go to Florida and talk to people.

He asked about the odds that an SRB would catastrophically fail on any given mission. A NASA PR flack gave an answer on the other side of 1:10000. Various engineers who worked on the SRB program and related programs gave answers more like 1:150 or 1:300.

The moral of the story: PR people tend to pull numbers out of their asses.

In the words of the late Sam Kinison...

[owlmeat]

"You want to impress us, go to the moon and bring back our flag"!

Slightly paraphrased for clarity.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[iamblades]

Well, Get some cold fusion systems up and working, then give me a call.

And dark matter is a theory to explain gravitaional anomalies and hasn't been fully proves AFAIK. There could be all kinds of small objects floating around outside the solar system that we can't see. Plenty probably big enough to punch some serious holes in spaceships. The chance of an extrasolar spaceship running into a comet or something is not insignificant over the course of several hundred years

Then, if you get lucky enough to find the thing and get the tech to launch a ship there, you have no real promise that the frikking thing will even be there when you finally get there. That'd be a big letdown, a 500+ year trip only to find out that the star supernovaed or the planet got hit by a comet.

I agree with all your ideas, but you're thinking about 10 steps and a few hundred (at least) years ahead of our technology...

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

... 5923 gallons of gasoline burned. Assume your SUV gets 14 miles to the gallon, and you have an SRB output of 423 miles' worth of SUV CO2. Don't forget to multiply by two, since there's two SRB's per shuttle....

You mean 165844 miles, not 846. And given that CO2 has more oxygen than carbon, I think your 14% estimate is a little untrustworthy.

However, I stand corrected. Not utterly, dead wrong, just off by about a decimal place.

This does not change the fact that it is much wiser to look for extrasolar planets before trying to colonize Mars, because then you can get dual-use from your generation starship.

Re:"Russia Direct" would be Easier and Cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll chip in for the cab driver's tip.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[HeghmoH]

Yeah, dividing instead of multiplying, right.

Anyway, you realize that a generation starship isn't needed to get to Mars, right?

Here's what'll happen.

[mtec]

We'll cut a deal with the Russians and go.
We'll land. Leave the ship, look around like Chevy Chase at the Grand Canyon, notice that we've squashed a giant mars cockroach with the big pad feet of the lander. Scoop some dirt, scrape up the bug and collect 5 of his living friends, get back in the lander - take off, come home.

PETA hires Johnny Cochran to represent the Mars Cockroaches and they are soon dubbed 'the Mars 5' in the press. Cochran sues for immediate release of the 'Mars 5' and compensation (with a small contingency fee). A long trial where Cochran uses the catch-phrase "For Mars to have peace, you must release!" ends with the 'Mars 5' being released to the care of their lawyer (the closest thing to a relative on Earth). After making the talk show rounds - 'That's right Dave - we do everything together' - the Mars 5 write a book, appear in cameo roles in the film written by Joe Eszterhas made from the book and the movie is universally panned. The 5 soon run out of money and fame and decide to do what comes naturally and breed. Soon the Earth is covered with Mars cockroaches. They defeat all attempts at eradication that range from large 'hotels' that the roaches soon learn not to go into ('cause - they don't come out...) to the hydrogen bomb (which just makes them feel 'all tingly'). Mankind is slowly eliminated except for lawyers, certain politicians and internet telemarketers who the cockroaches feel a kinship with.

I don't think we should go if you ask me.

I'm not dead damn it!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...but my new story ideas have been dead since around the early 80's

6 people in a 30 ton ship?

[ziegast]

I don't think you can get 6 people to mars and back in a 30 ton ship; somebody prove me wrong - and then tell me how we build it for free!

No one said they had to be live people.

Ok, ok, $20b might be too low a number. Is there a company with $40b in the bank that could send six of their lawyer^H^H^H^H^H^H astronauts to Mars?

-ez

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

you realize that a generation starship isn't needed to get to Mars, right?

Yes, and I also realize that Mars will never support human life without the kind of attention that can only be given by having a generation starship, including a genetics and biochem lab, in orbit around it.

Also, if we hope to terraform mars, we might have to smash a comet or several into it. There is an ongoing mission right now to study cometary cores.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

You forgot

5. Develop Illudium Q36 Space Modulator
6. BOOM! There's supposed to be a Magnificent BOOM!

Longbets.org

[barista]

This seems like fodder for longbets.org. Anyone got $1000?

The answer is...robots!

[2g3-598hX]

Forget manned missions. They are expensive and pointless. Sending a human being into outer space requires so much life support it is not economical. And there is always the possiblity of a PR disaster if there is a mission failure (e.g. Challenger). Is the PR bonus that you get from having humans on Mars worth the risk and the expense? Instead create lots of smart robots that can handle exploring Mars automatically without human intervention (because Mars can get up to 16 light minutes away from Earth, and unless we put satellites in place when they are on the dark side of mars they will be unreachable), that are solar powered (and so can run indefinitely (barring accidents, and cosmic rays, and maybe meteors)), and capable of traversing any sort of terrain (spider-like legs) and can conduct any sort of scientific experiment humans can. They will need powerful AI, but I believe that is within the reach of current technologies. If we want to be really ambitious, we should aim, one day, to create an industrial robotic settlement on mars which can create new robots by mining ore, smelting, etc. (perhaps just the chassis, etcetera, we could send them the more difficult to make (but light, and so cheaper to send) components like the ICs). But this is approaching science fiction. I just can't understand the fascination people have with manned missions. Humans are just too expensive to sustain in extraterrestrial environments.

Re:The answer is...robots!

[Razor Sex]

AI isn't even close to becoming human-level intelligence. Robots don't even understand abstract concepts, which are quite useful for problem solving.

Re:The answer is...robots!

[2g3-598hX]

Who said aything about human-level intelligence? All the robots would need is ant-like intelligence.

Re:The answer is...robots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans are just too expensive to sustain in extraterrestrial environments.

Humans are expensive to sustain in terrestrial environments as well. What is your point?

Re:The answer is...robots!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you stretch the word 'intelligence' to the point where it applies to ants then you've effectively emptied it of any meaning whatsoever.

It is not the intelligence that is the problem. The problem is the "whole ant". The way it was built, the way it moves, the way it behaves, and the way it self-repairs, the way it exists in relationship to the things around it.

A factory that is alive is no longer a factory.

Re:The answer is...robots!

[Anonymous Coward]

Robots do understand abstract concepts. That is the whole point. They understand NOTHING BUT abstract concepts. What they do not understand is concrete experience.

History did not begin in Europe?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Oh, there was plenty of settlement in the Americas well before even Columbus got there. History did not begin in Europe.

Well, considering that "history" means a written record, then history began in the Middle East, and didn't include the Americas until the Europeans brought writing.

(At least for North America. The Aztecs had some written records, which the Spanish destroyed. In which case they no longer exist as "history", because they're now unknown.)

Re:History did not begin in Europe?

[Anonymous Coward]

history
n 1: the aggregate of past events: "a critical time in the
school's history"
2: the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from
the past to the present and even into the future: "all of
human history"

fosset time

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN just reported Stephen Fosset will try to land on Mars with a balloon after a pit stop on the moon...

What about the crew?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got this all wrong people. This can be done! We only have to make a contingency plan so that the ship engineer and the pilot don't fall in love, no one gets pushed off of a cliff, and said engineer doesn't have to do battle with a bloodthirsty ex-military mechanical robot.

Neo-Luddites

[thales]

No matter what the Proposal, we hear the same alarmist claptrap from the eco chicken littles.
" Burning that much rocket fuel would turn our atmosphere in to that of Venus's!"
Any solid scince to back up your contention? Any thing besides the warmed over 1960s Hippy Dippy nonsense that dominates the eco movement?
"Trust me on this one."
After the alarmist nature of your post I have far more reason to distrust you than to trust you.

Re:Neo-Luddites

[js7a]

I'm telling you to build terrestrial planet finders and generation starships before trying to visit Mars, and you're calling me a neo-luddite? That's chutzpah!

As for the science you asked for, take a good look at the r^2 value in that sigmoid curve, extrapolating about 98% of the observed variance with just four parameters of prediction. You might note that, given the eventual relative magnitude of the curve, it's not like we have to do anything special to make our atmosphere so Venus-like that this summer's fires, floods, and storms will look like a campfire at mid-tide on the mists of the beach.

Re:Neo-Luddites

[thales]

The proposal is for a mission 13 years from now. Durring that time the Neo-Luddites will exhale far more CO2 into the atmosphere than the small ammount that would be generated by the launch of a Rocket that mainly burns H2 and O2. A Mass suicide by the Global warming alarmists will do more to protect the enviroment than banning manned space flight. I have given a far better reason to put off a manned mission elsewhere in this thread, namely contamination of Mars by Earthly Microbes making it hard to study the possibility of Native Martian life.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[js7a]

... Then, if you get lucky enough to find the thing and get the tech to launch a ship there, you have no real promise that the frikking thing will even be there when you finally get there....

That's what they told Columbus about the Western passage to India.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Prof.Phreak]

Would be great publicity if they decided to use GNU software for the mission... If someone could get Linux running on a PDA and a PS2, then why not a 'space' computer?

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Prof.Phreak]

Wasn't there some technology that was experimented with to launch things into orbit using mini nuclear explosions? I think they mentioned it on Discovery channel a few years ago. The idea is that if they researched it enough, it would mean very cheap way to reach space (you could lift heavier loads a lot cheaper). But they shut down the program because of its taboo nuclear thingies (not great for public relations nor environmentalists).

No Manned Missions (Yet)

[thales]

Not because of any paranoid mistrust of the Russians. Not because of any BS about spending the money on the earthbound poor. Simply because we don't know if there is life on Mars yet. A Manned mission will "contaminate" Mars with our micro-organisims making it very difficult to discover any native Martian microbes unless they are very different from the mundane Earth microbes that would arrive as colonists with the manned crew. If unmanned exploration fails to discover any native life on Mars Then I'll be one of the biggest supporters of Manned exploration. If there are "natives" on Mars their existance will have to be protected from the contamination that would go with a manned mission. Life that evolved off Earth could provide us with many answers about the evoulation of life and of how common life may be in the Cosmos. It would be a far more valuable resource than any bennifits that could be gained from a Mars Mission.

Re:No Manned Missions (Yet)

[gerardrj]

We've alreadt sent plenty of probes to the planet. Surely we've already contaminated it. I don't see how humans in hermetically sealed space suits would cause any more contamination than the eqipment we've already dumped on Mars.

It's like saying you won't shake someone's hand because they're sick, but you'll take the dollar bill they hand you to get them a cup of coffee. Same germs either way.

Re:No Manned Missions (Yet)

[thales]

Up to now a lot of care has gone into decontaminating Martian probes. Humans on the other hand harbor many more microbes than the small number that might surrive our decontamination procedures and durring the flight will contaminate everything in the spacecraft including the outside of the space suits they will wear on the surface. Don't get me wrong, I strongly favor the concept of Martian exploration, it's just a matter of making damn sure that we don't blow the chance to discover life on a nearby planet. While we wait for the results from the unmanned probes we can develop the technology needed for a manned outpost by working on a Moon Base that would be manned for the same time periods as would be required for the time periods that the Astronauts/Cosmonauts would be on the Martian surface.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure there wasn't hidden meaning behind that misspelling? It sure looked stupid, though.

Thats what I meant.

[autopr0n]

Hrm, I guess I communicated that poorly. I meant 'frozen' as in 'one step lower then their normal states'

Not the first time.

[stuffman64]

Apparently, Russia thought of a plan back in 1989, proposed by NPO Energia. It was to be 716 days in length, with a crew of 4 (only 2 would go to the surface for 7 days). The craft that would go to mars would be constructed in space, and 5 Energia-class heavy-lift boosters would take it up there. Read about the plan here. Apparently, the project never got off the ground, so to speak.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[iamblades]

Those two things are just incomparable...

And guess what?

The western passage to India WASN'T there!

What you are suggesting is closer to Columbus crossing the Atlantic in a rowboat.

Not that I don't agree with the vision, it's just a long way off..

$20B for the russian people

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see... $16B for the Mafia... $4B for the government officials... $3B for the carpet baggesrs from the U.S. and Western Europe...

So $20B should only put the Russian people another $2B in the hole.

Or are you one of those morons who think there's a McDonald's in orbit, and that all money spent on space is spent IN space, on McOxygen and McHappy Meals, and thus disappears forever from the planetary economy?

the money

[loz]

How can Russia afford to spend $20 billion on a stupid trip to mars, when at the moment most western societies are funding poor Russia with billions of dollars to demantle their nuclear warheads, clear up all the mess surrounding all that scary biotech-shit they created in the 70s and 80s which is now easily falling in the hands of terrorists, etc., etc.?

Re:the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah this is probably a troll, but I'll say it anyway.

With all of the nukes in the US, and anthrax disappearing from supposedly secure military facilities (ok it only happened once but you get my meaning) Should we be paying for the states to dismantle their weapons as well?
Oh wait, America is rich.

The claims that they are necessary for "homeland defence" are rather pushing it. Everyone paranoid after recent events, but this goes on round the world on a daily basis. (Look at N.Ireland).

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, it was called Orion, and was used to launch things to other stars and stuff, not into orbit. Detonating a dozen nukes on in the atmosphere would create a slight fallout problem. In deep space there's no neighbors close enough to get bothered by your radioactive exhaust. :)

Low hanging fruit...

[Alien Being]

Given the failure of Russian communism on earth, it's only natural that they would set their sights on a planet that's already red.

Russia?

[Shooter6947]

Russia can't afford a manned mission to New Jersey. What makes them think they can afford to go to Mars?

I wanna go..

[ByteHog]

Get off this stupid planet for a while, with all of it's fighting, wars, and terrorist bullshit...

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

While the $20 billion estimate probably is quite optimistic, I hope and expect that 500-million dollar shuttle launches won't be used to ferry tonnes of bulk cargo into orbit.

Disposable rockets would be much cheaper.

Russians to the moon!

[taustin]

The article says that the Russians are hoping to work closely with the European Space Agency and/or NASA.

Translation: They need someone else to pay for it.

The horribly wrong thing was Richard Nixon

[Howzer]

You're right. The horribly wrong thing was Dick wanting to shut down the American space program. It wasn't his show, started by the Democrats and all that, and so the Apollo program was gutted, just when the interesting stuff was about to happen. This was then compounded by a horribly wrong choice. Dick gave NASA a choice. The Space Shuttle, or Mars.

NASA, to their eternal shame, looked at the question like this:

Shuttle = thousands of ground crew, "new" technology so big R&D budget, immediate, locked in "market" (discourage booster innovation - be the only sattelite launcher), etc.

Mars = much smaller ground crew, "old" technology (you could get there with a Saturn V), long-term, no "cashflow".

So they picked the Shuttle. It looked like the right thing to do. So now, in 2002, we have a 100 tonne lifter that brings 90 tonnes back to earth in the shape of that stupid orbiter. We have all our "space going eggs" in one basket, the 1970's tech Shuttle. We have the ISS, the largest boondoggle of all time, up there to give the shuttle something to do. And we still don't have a Mars Mission.

Of course this is history told with an eye to making a good story and not completely 100% accurate, but it's good enough to illustrate the point, which is accurate: NASA had a choice and they chose Shuttle.

Re:The horribly wrong thing was Richard Nixon

[Stween]

So now, in 2002, we have a 100 tonne lifter that brings 90 tonnes back to earth in the shape of that stupid orbiter.

Actually, we have an orbiter which is currently grounded.

mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's funny

The costing on this has ALL BEEN DONE

[Howzer]

Buy this book.

Or go to this site.

It's all been costed. You CANNOT compare the shuttle. But if you want to, the Shuttle is a 100 tonne launch platform, that brings 90 tonnes back in the shape of the orbiter. It's stupidly inefficient. You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V. Now do your maths based on 100 tonnes to LEO. Better still, do your math on the 140 tonne to LEO booster you could get if you stripped the Shuttle off the STS and re-configured it slightly.

Bottom Line: $20 billion is real. The numbers have been done by experts, not back of the napkin stuff like the ISS. And $20 Billion buys you a ten year program with 3 shots to Mars, crew of four each shot, total of 18 Man-Years on the surface. Woohoo! Let's go!

Re:The costing on this has ALL BEEN DONE

[Anonymous Coward]

You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V

BZZZT. The "entire" ISS is going to be 300 tons and cover a football field.

Re:The costing on this has ALL BEEN DONE

[lunaman]

I think you're confusing "fantasy ISS" with what's going to be left when "Slasher" O'Keefe gets finished with it...

Re:The costing on this has ALL BEEN DONE

[Howzer]

Me: You could launch the whole ISS with ONE Saturn V
You: BZZZT. The "entire" ISS is going to be 300 tons and cover a football field.

Bzzzt yourself. Then you do it with three Saturn Vs. Saturn V threw 118 tonnes to LEO. The point is still the same - doing in the Shuttle in 10 tonne increments is idiotic.

Strip the orbiter off, make the Ares booster (sometimes called "Shuttle C") with existing hardware and you have a latter-day Saturn V. That is what should be used to launch ISSs or Mars missions. And that was my original point. You simply can't take "Shuttle Math" and apply it to anything approaching what is the "proper way" to get to space.

In fact, if you developed a Saturn V class launcher from scratch it would still be cheaper than using the Shuttle to take the ISS up and bolt it together. How do we know how much it would cost to develop and launch a Saturn V? We've done it once already, in 1966!

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not nuclear: People are afraid of nuclear stuff. You can make it so that it won't vaporize or produce harmful amounts of radiation if the booster explodes (like the batteries on Cassini and other probes), even demonstrate that it works as designed (IIRC one time some rocket exploded on the pad, and the uranium pellets from the payload's battery were recovered intact from the ocean. Wish I could find a link somewhere...), and there'll still be people who will try to kill you for even suggesting using it. Anybody trying to fly enough nuclear materials to power a manned Mars mission, whatever the safety precautions, would get worse PR than the Taliban. No sane political party would risk that many votes on a relatively useless Mars mission.

The only way I see that a nuclear powered craft could work would be if the uranium is mined from an asteroid or something. No need to lauch uranium/plutonium from Earth, no chance of a rocket explosion contaminating everything, no problem, right? Now we just need to find a nearby asteroid with uranium in it...

Ion engines would be cool, but they don't produce much thrust. Perfectly suited for light probes like Deep Space 1, not as much for high-mass manned missions.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[discogravy]

1999 called, it wants your business plan to come back.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

hell 20 Billion ower 13 years is pocket lint. The state of CA has a budget that will soon be 100 billion PER YEAR. It shocks me how little we cpend on NASA. I would love to see a volontary 1-10 dollar donation for NASA program on the 1040 forms. The current spening is a few cents per year per person.

1 Shuttle Launch =approx 1 Mars Launch

[Howzer]

They're both about 100 tonnes to LEO.

But I guess you didn't do any research before you posted, right? And links to slashdot don't count as research! God, I wish they did, I'd have some kind of PhD already! :)

nah... no point

[lingqi]

going to mars this early is such an "mommy look what i can do" deal -- completely a waste of money...

we all know we can make it to mars and with enough cash infusion, and a dose of luck that the equip does not crap out half way there (and there are no f*ed up danger lurking out there like little green men etc) -- from what i've been seeing -- all the satellites comming back to life and what not - i'd say that the darn things built for space are pretty bullet proof... so, again, we can make it there if we wanted to.

but WHY?

(same point with why put a person on the moon back in the days -- but back then we had a space race, we had a president's promise, we had a "nation's pride", and we sure as hell did not have a clue how it was gonna be done)

but this time it's different, we can do it; we *know* we can.

the problem is that with this knowledge - there goes half the fun (or, purpose) -- so the other half have to make up for it: are there sufficient scientific and economical benefits to this? i don't think so. economically certainly not. as for scientifically -- other than collecting some data on how bad solar radiation really is on the human body when away from the magnetosphere, not much. besides the craft will probabbly generate a magnetosphere of its own anyhow - to make sure the astronauts stay alive. and again -- we already know how to get there, it just costs money; so what we will get out of it as for learning the "unknown" is scarce at best.

the one last possible benefit is "experience" in manned deep-space flight, for preparation of the future; but see -- we don't need to goto mars for that. for that much trouble -- it would be much wiser to get a moon-base / moon-colony going, sufficiently advanced to do some manufacturing, so that when we do go to mars, 1) the exploratory trip will be a helluvalot cheaper, 2) if the first trip runs into ANY kind of trouble it's much easier to send a rescue team, and 3) the second or third trip to mars is a colony ship; and all those trips to the moon? well, how's that for "spacetravel experience"?

any money (this 20 bil included) toward a moon base will pay for itself within 3-4 trips to mars; probabbly less if the moon becomes self-sustained and actually exports stuff to earth or becomes a serious tourist attraction.

The first "red planet" pun?

[stinky wizzleteats]

Seriously, I can't believe I haven't seen one yet. You know, Russians, red planet, get it?

Re:The first "red planet" pun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope !

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[cybermage]

They can get $20B by simply diverting funds from their efforts to stop Moose & Squirrel.

But seriously, no sane person would even contemplate using shuttle technology to launch a Mars mission, so you're math is almost certainly whack.

As someone else eluded to, the fuel for the return trip could be produced on Mars and even be waiting for the cosmonauts to arrive.

A serious Mars mission would send supplies and "still" ahead and then the crew later when the ability to return was assured.

russia and people

[ehiris]

They could have pulled this off for a lot cheaper if they wouldn't have killed their best scientists under the stalinist environment.

Re:russia and people

[Anonymous Coward]

That was over 50 years ago! Its a completely different society today. Nobody just disappears anymore. If you can forgive the Germans surely you can forgive the Russians.

Re:russia and people

[Anonymous Coward]

That is just US propaganda. Soviet did not kill of scientists, etc.. "Only" people that was bad for society - much like the US DOES TODAY!!

How can they afford this?

[th3_l33t_h4x0r]

I'd just be interested to see how they can afford this. They had to cancel their shuttle program (which was so much more advanced than NASA's shuttle that it's not funny) due to lack of funds. The few working shuttles they have are now on display and are unlikely to ever see the light of day. They have to take paying passengers to keep their thirty-year-old Soyuz fleet in space.

What we need is another space race. None of this co-operation with ESA or NASA, but another let's-get-there-before-the-Commies, before-the-decade-is-out JFK-style space race.

(SIG FOR SALE - $1,200.99)

Re:Insert Obligatory *NSYNC Space Reference Here..

[linzeal]

Well you sure and hell couldn't eat her if something went terribly wrong, so you might have to fatten her up a little.

That's Funny Now that you Mention It...

[BlackGriffen]

My sister is always complaining, "Why are we spending so much money on NASA, when there are starving people we could feed?" I get rather frustrated every time she makes a comment like that. Does she not realize how much potential the space program has? But then, I guess that the people running the space program lost sight of any kind of ultimate goals themselves. Content to just launch a couple of experiments, that are really only of interests to theorists and philosophers, instead of making real progress in to moving out there.

*sigh*

BlackGriffen

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the thousands of useful inventions that came out of the NASA

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, Tang!

Competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err...don't you think it would be better if the USA and Russia worked together instead of competed to get to Mars??

Sounds bitter, but

[Catbeller]

even though I loved the U.S. space program all of my life, I hope the Europeans and the Russians freeze us out of the Mars mission.

Why? To get out from under American dictation of goals. To get away from our shortsightedness. To...

get something DONE.

Re:Sounds bitter, but

[mtec]

I think you should go - not to Mars, just go.

Re:Sounds bitter, but

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think European or Russian shortsightedness is any better than American?

Or do you really think people are different simply because there's an ocean in between them?

Go Russia!

[JimPooley]

Let's face it, the Russians have a major advantage over the Americans in this.
They have the best expertise on not just the physical effects of long-term space flight, but they're also experts on the psychological effects of being cooped up in a big space can for a long time. You need to know all that for this trip.
They're also the only nation with the big dumb boosters you need for a trip like this. Their hardware is pretty bulletproof as they use tried and trusted hardware rather than going for the most high-tech option.
And at the moment Russia is the only nation on earth with manned spaceflight capability. All Shuttles are grounded, and who knows whether they'll ever fly again?

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Viadd]

As a Russian told a NASA adminstrator, "just because you pay $20 for a bolt doesn't mean it's a $20 bolt."

There's no physical law that says stuff has to go up on the shuttle at $15k/lb, especially if the Russians are involved. They do have rockets of their own that are cheap enough for tourist flights.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

And besides, if in the aliens were traveling through that section of contaminated space they'd already have the requisite radiation shielding.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[g4dget]

Well, I agree that $20 billion is a low-ball. On the other hand, the shuttle and ISS are gold plated boondoggles for contractors, of little scientific or practical value. You can't do any cost estimates based on them.

(Of course, I still haven't figured out why we would even want a manned mission to Mars.)

what a colossal waste of money

[g4dget]

I think sending people to Mars serves no purpose whatsoever. Whether it's $20 billion or $20 trillion, for the cost of sending 6 people to Mars, we could send probably a hundred unmanned one-way missions, or even several unmanned return missions. Those would yield much more scientific data.

If, on the other hand, the goal is public relations and media coverage, then let the entertainment and media businesses pay for it.

Re:what a colossal waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of values that cannot be measured in terms of money.. A russian mission to mars will be inspiering for a lot of children; it will give people hope in humanity; we will start believing in our selves again; also, like another poster previously said; THE MONEY DOES NOT DISAPPEAR.. The money goes to - if it is built in russia - to russian workers and scientists, and they will use the money to buy consumer products (like food, ex) - and the economy will get a boost..

Economics is not about saving money - its about spending money. The more money thats is spent in the world - the better for the economy.. The key to create a great economy is to figure out good stuff to spend money on. And i believe a mission to mars is one of those good ideas; in practice it will only boost economy and give us hope for the future.

Re:what a colossal waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

A comment: One could argue that "the people working with the mars mission could be growing food on farms instead - to help the starvation". However, i think that is a silly argument; people who work with space science; work with space science.. Also, today, with current technology, only a percent of the population is needed to create food.. The rest can do other not-directly-life-necessary-things. things such as a mars-mission, politics, or economic sstuff (A LOT of people work with handling money - investors, bankpeople, etc etc) - AND THAT IS TOTALY INECESSARY..

A mars mission IS a good way to spend those extra billions of work-hours that is not used for anything good anyways.. If people argue that the mars-mission-people should create food instead, i argue that all millions of people who work soley with handling money (or perhaps LIVING off the intrest of their money), should go and create food. The laziest people in the world, is not the unemployed, it is the people who do a living by having lots of money in stocks, etc..

Re:Insert Obligatory *NSYNC Space Reference Here..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you sure and hell couldn't eat her
No comment

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[nusuth]

You need a clue about what ion propulsion is.

Easy mars mission requires either a breakthru in rocket technology (in that case US might go as well) or massive space infrastructure spending (IOW we have the technology to make Mars our backyard, but cost of building the infrastructure is far higher than just going to Mars a few times without it.) As it stands, going to Mars is hard, doable but hard. Nuclear rockets do not solve the problem and ion propulsion isn't even relevant.

Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever moderated me down as flamebait must have selected Funny, but accidently scrolled their mouse wheel which caused Flamebait to be selected. Please ignore the error and forgive the moderator.

I want.

[Zapdos]

It is easy to want and dream, when you have no cash.

Russia? Why not Etheopia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell you what, Russia... You guys get to the point when you can pay your cops, doctors, nurses, and soldiers, and let countries with viable economies send people to Mars.

I'm not saying Russia couldn't do it-- I am saying that a country shouldn't spend that kind of money in the situation Russia is in.

Re:It was different when they were Communist

[SEWilco]

Yes, it is interesting to see the secrecy labels and warnings on the old Apollo Guidance Computer documents. Wouldn't want everyone building Moon rockets...of course, at the time a guidance computer was dangerous due to competition to engineer nuclear missiles. (Now there's more computing power in a handheld GPS unit than is needed by a simple ballistic missile)

Saturn V

[localroger]

There are at least three SV-I stages in existence which could be copied. One sits outside of the Martin-Marietta plant in New Orleans, and two more are part of complete SV stacks which are on display IIRC at Houston and Cape Canaveral. I'm sure it would be much simpler to disassemble and scan these functional units which incorporate all the sweat-and-trial-and-error mods that were undertaken during the Apollo program, rather than starting completely from scratch.

Assuming, that is, that you aren't one of the boneheads that thinks "backward is never the right direction." Sometimes you leave stuff behind you really shouldn't have.

Re:Saturn V

[crawling_chaos]

Why would we want to? I doubt we could even find most of the electronic parts for the internal guidance mechanisms, and some of the alloys are no longer made as well. By the time you designed and tested the substitutions, you'd have a new rocket anyway. Wouldn't it be cheaper to look at a first stage that used SSMEs instead of F-1s?

We've learned a lot about rocket design since Werher and Co designed the Saturns. We ought to put that knowledge to good use, rather than slavishly implementing past designs.

Re:Saturn V

[AmericanInKiev]

Really how much is there to learn. The problem with rockets isn't complicated like a multithreaded operating system - it's really just payload/fuel.

Unless liquid oxygen and nitrogen have changed lately - I doubt there is some new way to throw them together and set them on fire.

If the Saturns worked - they should be included as options.

AIK

Re:Saturn V

[crawling_chaos]

ENIAC worked too, but no one wants to port Quake to it.

The Saturns were built in the late 60s, using late 60s technology, including such things as ferrite core RAM and ROM in the guidance systems. Not only that, the factories that produced to those rockets are gone. They've been moved to other projects or closed since 1972 at the latest.

We can't build a Saturn V for less than it would cost to design a new rocket from scratch. Why try to shoehorn 30-40 year old technology into the project? It makes more sense to see what we can utilize from rockets that are being built today, like Arianne, Proton, Delta and the Shuttle. Those factories are still operating.

Also, I would guess that the physics of combustion instability is an order of magnitude more difficult than a multi-threaded OS. Don't assume that CS is the end-all and be-all of hard problems. Difficult things are described as "rocket science" for a reason. Pick up any book on the development of the Apollo spacecraft if you don't believe me.

PS: Liquid nitrogen is non-reactive and has no rocket applications that I'm aware of. Perhaps you meant Hydrogen? Also, the first stage of the Saturn V burned Kerosene as it's main propellant because in 1960s we couldn't build big LH engines. I think the Russians still use a Kersosene first stage in the Proton, in fact.

Re:Saturn V

[AmericanInKiev]

Hydrogen - Of Course. (Late Night)
However, The Russians have a far less cost per payload pound than we have.

I suggest this is because the problem of Space Flight is fundamental and not very susceptible to the western design improvement model which has brough us more's law for example.

The Russian's simply have fuel + lessoverhead = lower cost per payload pound.

You suggest more overhead - ie more engineering, more design etc. As a taxpayer - I think we should look at what the Russians are doing - which is probably using a rather dated design technologically, and amortizing the engineering.

You cite ferrite core RAM as a reason for redesigning an entire Spaceship. I think you might be forgetting that the expense in a computer system for rocket flight is in large part the testing and code audit. Once that's done - and it works - why pay more money to change it? Ferrite cores work - the Software works.

Redesigning without some serious improvements in the cost per payload pound is a waste of resources.

Questions for you:
Why is the Russian Space Program so much more cost effective, and two - what improvments in converting weight into thrust have occurred in the last 40 years to justify scraping working designs?

AIK

Re:Saturn V

[crawling_chaos]

I cited ferrite core as one small example of the huge amount of obsolete or no longer manufactured components in the Saturn design. There are literally thousands more. By the time you found replacements, the testing burden would be the same as that of a new rocket.

Russian technology has been very effective at lifting to near-Earth and geosychnronous orbits. I would note that they never completed a rocket that could deliver a manned spacecraft to the moon and land. N-1 kept blowing up on the pad, largely due to the fact that the design bureau in charge of engines (which was seperate from Korolev's outfit) refused to spend their limited funds on big engines and insisted on using something like 40 little ones in the first stage. With that many opportunities for failure, something always seemed to go wrong.

It seems that most of the Russian success in cheap lift comes from a very pragmatic decision they made years ago. They simply kept building and improving the existing design. This kept the factories open and slowly drove down costs.

We didn't do that. We abandoned the Saturn tech and moved to the Shuttle. It's too late to undo that decision. It's to avoid something like that happening again that I suggested using technologies from existing programs to develop a new vehicle.

The single biggest improvement in converting mass into thrust since the design of Saturn is a much better understanding of cryogenic fuels and of combustion instability, which has allowed the design of engines that far exceed the capacity of Saturn's. At the point of it's development, the Space Shuttle Main Engine was the most efficient design in the world.

The only problem is that it might not be big enough to lift a long-duration mission. (Lord knows the Saturn V was too puny in that regard as well.) Engine design is complicated, and you can't just make a little rocket bigger and expect it to work.

The moon trip is still a hoax.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's still too much logical evidence around to prove that once Apollo 11 was outside the atmosphere they never went further. And, sending manned missions to Mars is nothing but a smokescreen.

An alternate point of view

[Austenite]

Quote: The United States has also been the only nation to successfully navigate a manned spacecraft beyond the orbit of the Earth.

I am sure the Russians were the first to have a manned flight orbit the moon. In fact, a quick web search reveals Russianspaceweb which lists at least 4 (unmanned) Russian missions that flew around the moon. The documentary that gave me this point of view put the view that since the Russians had a man around the moon earlier than expected, the American moon landing was more rushed than even JFK envisaged.

Also, the Russians weren't THAT far behind being able to land on the moon.

The wonderful thing about Slashdot is that I am sure that someone actually involved in both programmes will reply, presently. :)

Re:An alternate point of view

[stinky wizzleteats]

I am sure the Russians were the first to have a manned flight orbit the moon.

I frankly don't understand how you can say something so incorrect. The Russians were never able to put a manned spacecraft in lunar orbit. A comprehensive history of the N1 program can be found at astronautix. There you will find that the closest the Soviets came to putting a manned spacecraft in lunar orbit was the November 1968 Zond 6 mission, an unmanned test run of the Soyuz 7K-L1 spacecraft. A seal failed during the return to Earth, resulting in immediate cabin depressurization. The main parachute also failed, and the spacecraft crashed. Apollo 8 successfully orbited the moon (first) with 3 crew on board and returned them safely in December of 1968. The only manned flight of the N1 succeeded only in demonstrating the effectiveness of the crew ejection system. It never made it into Earth orbit.

I wouldn't worry about that...

[No Such Agency]

Not because of any paranoid mistrust of the Russians. Not because of any BS about spending the money on the earthbound poor.

Well as far as I can tell, the money for a crewed Mars program is squandered every year by the US gov't, catering to the earthbound rich. And any "paranoia" about Russia is probably partly a strong, founded suspicion that they can't really afford to contribute significantly. So I wouldn't shed any tears for those putative Mars organisms right now. It'll be a while before anyone sets foot on the red planet.

Shed tears for them later. When resource extraction companies and venture capitalists reach Mars, they're f*cked, just like every other "indigenous population" in the history of human exploration and colonization.

Re:I wouldn't worry about that...

[thales]

The Foes of Space exploration haven't made it a habit of whinning "We are shooting all that Money into space while rich people do without". The converse can' be said. The Left has a long history of wanting to strip the space budget to buy votes from the poor. Wellfare payments to both the Rich and the poor need to be halted. This dosen't include tax cuts however. The Left also has a habit of calling a tax cut a "give a way to the rich". There is a big differance between NOT taking something away from a person who has allready earned it, and giving something to someone who hasn't earned it (unless you consider voting for the "correct" canidate earning money.) Of course many on the left have the same mentality towards the citizens as slave owners had, that every thing the slave produced belonged to the Master (The State) and any of the Master's "earnings" that were returned to the slave were some kind of gift.

Physical effects of long term spaceflight

[eoinatstraylight]

If I recall correctly one of the effects of spending so much time in microgravity is that calcium is not deposited correctly, hence astronauts exhibiting low bone mass after long spells in space. However this also works with teeth. 700+ days would result in every one of them falling out.

How's that going to look in the pictures? Mankind sets foot on a new planet, and 6 gummy grins stare back.

we definitelly need some more FAKE landings

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, the movie technology has made a great leap since 1969 - Im really looking forward to see some new effects ;)))

Actually NASA could go it alone...

[Shivetya]

The only thing that holds back the US in space is the budget its given. If you look at it now we hardly spend anything on space.

If you could get a tenth of the pork in the budget into NASA they could pay for the trip easily.

Pony it up, AC.

[MatthewDunbar]

I'll pass up the obvious opportunity for 'flat earth' comments.

If you think you've got a case, by all means lay it out. I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy.

Watcha got?

We don't need the government

[ApprenticeGeek]

The question is not whether Russia is going to try to launch a mission, but whether or not they should send a probe and eventually humans. In fact, why should any government be involved in these endeavours? We should realize where this is all going to lead to; specifically, colonization of other planets. Did the Russians think about Mir when they launched Sputnik? Did the US believe they would end up with the Space Shuttle when they started with Mercury? Let us learn from history that we might have the foresight to look ahead and analyze the consequences of our actions. Where will manned missions lead to eventually? Truthfully, I place my bet on colonization. And when, not if, we set up a base, maybe not in our lifetimes even, who will govern and control that base? Do we want the Russians to have a political hold on Mars, the Moon, or any other planet? Furthermore, do we want even our corrupted American bureaucracy there? Look at what happens when politics rears its ugly head in places where it should not belong. Look at the International Space Station, for example. All of the normal, expected engineering problems are multiplied a hundredfold! Government has no place beyond the Earth's atmosphere, and should eliminate its stifling grip to give private funded companies with their own initiative a chance. We don't need any government controlling us these matters, and if we allow them to continue to do so we will reap the troubles of our own making.

Jeez

[Rogerborg]

If you care about story quality, why even bother submitting here rather than K5? If you have a quality report on this, pop it in the edit queue there and revel in the feel of actually being appreciated rather than reviled for daring to submit.

Bill Gates could go three times...

[shmee]

...and still be a billionaire, according to the current figures at the Bill Gates Wealth Clock.

But seriously, it's interesting to read the comments here. I think the poster who said that we don't have enough "political capital" said it best. It's a large simplification, but in a democracy, this basically means the majority of people don't want to go. They've got other things they care about more. In the decades-old "billions for space vs. other stuff" argument, other stuff is winning. I would suggest that this will remain the case in the forseeable future, unless the world climate changes considerably, or proponents find a more compelling argument for the general populace than "let's do it to see what's there".

I'm not sure where I stand. I'd love for people (preferably me :-) to go, but it's a tough argument when many people live in abject poverty and the world has many problems. I don't believe these could be solved just throwing 20 billion at them, but I'm sure we could all find a lot of ways to help disadvantaged people with 20 billion. In any case, if someone DID come up with the cash, might it not be better to spend the cash on the so-called Space Elevator? Similar costs have been quoted for that project, and it would seem to me that would bring more tangible benefits for the world. Making access to space cheap would make all space exploration, research and commercial exploitation (including manned mars missions) much cheaper, thus making a greater range of potential payoffs available to us. What do others think?

maybe because

[Ender Ryan]

Maybe because K5 is full of elitist wannabe-intellectual pricks who think they know and understand everything in the world that's going on outside their little cubicle, when in reality they haven't the slightest clue and most likely never will because their intellectual blinders are shadowing reality from their vision?

Re:maybe because

[ceejayoz]

I'm failing to see how that's different from here... Slashdot fits that description pretty well.

Waste of Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia suffers from massive corruption, rampant crime, ecological disasters of the first order, and a miniscule GNP (per capita equivalent of Guatemala or Algeria). The poverty of its people keeps the nation in constant danger of its citizen's re-instating Communism. Now that's desperate. They can't pay their military or their nuclear weapons researchers what even a Costa Rican shoemaker earns. Because of this their nuclear arsenal is disappearing to God-knows-where and their nuclear weapons scientists are more bribable than a Chicago city official. There's so much testosterone at the upper levels of Russian management that they can't even allow help on a submarine rescue to save their own men. And now their bruised Stalinist egos want a trip to Mars? Fucking brilliant!

Disaster

[HR Pufnstuf]

I can't help but think that the Kursk (Oscar class sub) disaster is still fairly recent (relatively speaking). I'd hate to see the mars mission add to the long list of disasters for Russia. The Russians may try but I don't think they will succeed. How bout China?

careful with assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pretty FREAKING HUGE leap of logic to assume that "feed the starving" actually means "make everyone in the world 100% equal in every sense of the word".

nope, poster is right

[Anonymous Coward]

look at the history of the russian space program. the original cosmonauts rarely wore pressure suits. its not like they overtly hated their staff and wanted to see them hurt, but they clearly were not concerned about safety as a top priority. read any of the hundred or so books that documnent this extensively before you shoot your yap off.

How much cash does Bill Gates have?

[ArsSineArtificio]

How much cash does Bill Gates - thats one man - have?

Comparatively little, I suspect. Do you really think that rich people have all their money in a checking account? Most of Bill Gates' wealth is his stock holdings, especially MSFT.

Re:Pony it up, AC.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are a few clues to get you started:

1. the "Eagle" Moon Lander;
a) the way it was built with one big engine at the bottom
would never propell it straight up in real life. But that's
what the film clips shows.

b) when landing, the big rocket engine situated under the
lander should have be blasting away to "brace" the lander
from the impact.
As we have "witnessed" from the film clips, the surface
of the moon is covered with a deep layer of dust/sand.
Yet there is no crater under the lander. The dust/sand that
must have been blowed up in the "air" from the rocket blast
and covered at least the "feets" of the lander is nowhere
to be found.

2. the Van Allen Belt;
a) the radiation of the belt is, according to russian scientists,
so high that a human would burn if being exposed to it.

b) Russian scientists claim that it would take a few feets
of solid led enclosure to protect a human from
that kind of radiation.
NASA spokes people claim that their "space suits" were so advanced
that they would protect the astronauts.

Yet, when asked if NASA's space suits were so "high-tech",
how come they don't use them at risky operations like
nuclear leaks etc, NASA couldn't answer the question.

3. the NASA photos showing obious manipulation(cross marks "behind"
objects etc) have never been explained by NASA.

a) even the maker(Hasselblad) of the cameras that were used on
Apollo 11 mission is wondering how pretty much all photos are
near perfect in composition.
The cameras were mounted on the brest of the "space suits"
and the astronauts were not able to see what they were shooting,
making it next to impossible to get all those photos look good.

There are many sites online that have loads of other clues
that makes the "official version" seem very fishy indeed.
Some of the site are better than others. Just use your
intuition when going through all the information and
you'll most likely end up fine.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Brendor]

Let's not forget the thousands of useful inventions that came out of the NASA Space program

"Would you like some Tang?"

"Tang?"

"Its what astronaughts drank on the moon - Astronaughts on the moon - heh heh heh heh . . ."

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[vectra14]

russians have a way of using /100 money for their missions. so 20 bil for the russian space agency is like 200 bil for nasa. serious. (sorry for the flamebait, i'm not saying nasa is worse or better, its just how the nasa and rus SA compare economically)

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[MacJedi]

Simple solution: make methane fuel on mars and cut your costs enormously.

CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H2O

All you have to do is bring the hydrogen; the carbon dioxide is already there on Mars. And the reaction is exothermic, so you can do something useful with the waste energy too.

If you electrolyze the water you can produce more oxygen:

2H2O -> 2H2 + O2

Now for each unit of hydrogen that you bring to Mars, you get twelve units of methane/oxygen. And this is the simplest case, you can do better if you use some clever chemistry.

See Robert Zubrin's book, The Case for Mars for more information.

/joeyo

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot - it isn't about *AMERICA* and *the Space Shuttle*. It is about going to mars.

And if you've done the slightest bit of reading on the subject, you'd find that Russia's heavy rockets can carry far more payload per mission than the shuttle (and do it for much less money).

So please spare us your American-centric view.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[MousePotato]

ahh... it appears you have misread the dotbomb businesss manual. There is no profit in the list. number 5 should have read 'spend money on office perks and dog walks until the venture capitol runs out, then move on to next venture'

Hope that helps clear things up for you:)

A tenth of the pork?

[Anonymous Coward]

Half the U.S. federal budget is pork.

$1.7 trillion x 0.5 x 0.1 = $85 billion

With an annual budget of $85 billion, NASA could launch a mission every three months!

Flamebait?

[thales]

yeah right, Liberals love to modarate on political grounds, and hate being reminded of the nature of their political philosphy.

To The Moon, via Space Shuttle

[SEWilco]

Yes, the Space Shuttle can not get to the Moon. But it could carry a Moon ship to orbit.

The Space Shuttle has a payload bay of 15 feet around and 98 feet long. Payload weights can be up to 65,000 pounds.

The Saturn IVB stage, used to leave Earth orbit to the Moon was 58.4 feet long and 21.7 feet around. The Space Shuttle can't carry that up, but it can carry something almost twice as long and almost 3/4ths the diameter -- should be enough volume for fuel tanks large enough. The S-IVB weights 23,000 empty, which is well within the Shuttle weight limit. The 230,000 pounds of fuel would require four Shuttle trips -- probably five or six due to weight of tanks.

Assuming we have to take the spacecraft up in a separate launch, an Apollo CM/SM/LEM weighs 43,196 Kg/95,230Lbs. That's 1.5 times the Shuttle payload max weight, so have to carry those up in two trips. The SM and CM are 12.8 feet around, so can fit in the Shuttle. The LM ascent stage is 14.1 feet, so it fits too. The LM descent stage is 31 feet from leg-to-leg, so a different design for that is needed.

Re:To The Moon, via Space Shuttle

[bsane]

Thats good information. It really proves the point though the space shuttle is a poor substitute for the saturn when trying to reach the moon. It sounds like it would take at least 6 shuttle trips to get everything up. This would be more expensive that a dedicated rocket like the saturn...

Although maybe if you sent enough fuel up you could send the shuttle to the moon with a lander in the payload section. The amount of fuel might be prohibitive. On the plus side though you get a bigger 'command module' thats capable of sustaining a crew for weeks (whats the longest flight- 17 days?), and more importantly you would only have to engineer the lander...

Re:To The Moon, via Space Shuttle

[SEWilco]

Sure, the Space Shuttle could go anyplace if you give it more fuel...and more coolant water.

But after dropping the external tank, the Shuttle only has its small orbital maneuvering engines. To use the main engines you'd have to take up a tank assembly with the external tank's coupling...and before heading to the Moon someone has to bolt the tanks to the Shuttle and do that fuel/oxydizer plumbing. Of course, this could be modified if necessary to make it easier to do in orbit.

Of course, if you're starting the trip in orbit you can also end there. So you don't need a Command Module with a heat shield. Thus you don't need the Service Module. So you can have a larger LEM and use its restartable descent engine. And to provide more living space and supplies you push ahead of it a "living room" module -- which can be similar to an ISS module.

Hmm.. if you want more living space and supplies on the lunar surface, I wonder if the surround-it-with-balloons landing method would work at the speeds reached when falling from lunar orbit. There would be some falling, as you can't use a parachute as was done on Mars...unless your braking/descent engine is on a snap-off rod sticking out from the balloon cushion. But rather than have the rod going down it could go up, and have a descent engine assembly with the blast pattern aimed around the balloons. The rocket equivalent of a parachute, although maybe after it disconnects it can push itself back to orbit. No, it's a rocket skyhook...if it has enough thrust to ascend with the load it can behave like a helicopter. Drop from orbit, hover, set the load down, let go, then go back to orbit or land if equipped to do so.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[3waygeek]

Project Orion

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

A russian Energia rocket can launch a hell of a lot more than a shuttle can, and cheaper too. In terms of weight (not packaging, mind), Energia's could have launched all of ISS in just three flights (150 tons / launch; 450 tons for ISS fully assembled). But no, the americans wanted to use their shuttles...

Re:Pony it up, AC.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you are actually a government produced and trained chimp that lives at Area 51. I think that you killed JFK from the grassy knoll. I think that you caused the aliens to crash at Roswell. I think.......

I you don't believe me then how come I can fing stuff on the Internet that says otherwise (i.e. reread my comments above which must be posted on the Internet or else you couldn't be reading them, unless I think you used your super chimp hacking skills and planted the text on certain computers in order to trick me only to make it look like its actually on the Internet.....
Hmmmmmmmm.........

NASA? Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

unless of course this is a joke. Why would anyone sane ever want to work with NASA? Perhaps the Russians think it is important to crash and burn, but I would hope they were interested in competent research and exploration.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[MacJedi]

Tbink of it this way: more shuttle launches == more money for the contractors, who, btw, are /guaranteed/ to make money on their contracts. Not much incentive to innovate there, eh?

/joeyo

They will fail

[slashclone]

Because they havent researched an Alien Leader first.

Re: "the left" and space exploration (slightly OT)

[No Such Agency]

If you're american, and I suspect you are (if I'm wrong, I'll eat a bug), the political "Left Wing" in your country is a joke, which exists solely to "buy votes from the poor" (a purchase paid for in empty promises and lip service to social justice) as you quite correctly put it. Hell, the Left up here in Canada is pretty much a joke too, ineffectual, poorly-led and torn with internal struggles between Labour and Green elements. It's no wonder we haven't got a person on Mars yet, the hands holding the purse strings are tied to eyes so short-sighted they can barely see to the end of a 4-year mandate.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[cybrpnk2]

I actually HAVE done quite a bit of reading on the subject of Russian boosters and let me tell you, they ain't got much. Which of these Russian boosters are so much better than the Shuttle and are ***actually flying today***?

Other options.

[Christopher Thomas]

As will undoubtedly be mentioned multiple times on this discussion, that's Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct plan, and the concept of making the fuel there for the return trip seems to be the only vaguely sane way to do things.

Not necessarily.

Mars's escape velocity is slightly less than half that of Earth. A rocket with a fuel-to-cargo ratio comparable to an earth-to-orbit booster should be able to land on Mars and take off again without refueling. You get an even better ratio if you can use a gliding or parachuting entry on Mars, but that's a lot more difficult with the thin atmosphere.

How about getting to Mars in the first place? Well, getting into Earth orbit doesn't affect your total craft fuel, because you'd logically either build the ship in orbit or launch it from Earth (using all of its delta-v in one shot), and the refuel it in orbit from supplies brought up by the shuttle. This isn't cheap, but it would be easier than trying to build a craft with a 20-25 km/sec delta V.

Getting from Earth orbit to Mars orbit can use any of a variety of low-thrust, high-Isp drives, thus avoiding eating into most of the fuel reserves for the trip.

So, while it would probably be cheaper to produce fuel on Mars if it's practical to do so, you could still get to Mars without horrible problems by carrying your fuel with you and refueling in Earth orbit.

Energia Is A Potemkin Village

[cybrpnk2]

The Russian Energia vehicle flew exactly TWICE and the last time it flew was almost FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. The Shuttle has flown well over A HUNDRED times and the last time it flew was a couple of weeks ago. The Shuttle is expensive and the Shuttle isn't a mass-payload booster but it unfortunately is ALL WE'VE GOT (humanity, not America) to do a serious space mission at present with real equipment, not fantasy sand castles. Wanna use nuclear or a heavy lift vehicle? Hey, back to the drawing board for a ten-year development project...and it ain't gonna be as cheap as you think. Even if the Russians do it.

Thank God, Russia has the balls...

[bear105]

Only Russia has the balls to try a trip to Mars. NASA is just plain too scared.

Re: "the left" and space exploration (slightly OT)

[thales]

Yes I'm a US Citizen who's old enough to have seen the Left start calling for the destruction of NASA the moment it achived the goal their idol JFK set, landing a man on the Moon in the 1960's. The greatest Technological team ever assemblied was cast aside so the money could be squandered on vote buying scams. When the Eagle was sitting on the Moon few would have beleaved that at the dawn of the 21st Century NASA would be a hollow shell compared to what it used to be, barely able to maintain aging 1970's era launch vecicles, struggling to build a Space station and having no plans to go to Mars, which many viewed as the next step after the Moon landing.

In 1968 the movie 2001 was released. The Mission to Jupiter was considered far fetched, but the large Space station and the Moon base were things that many expected NASA to have achived by the 21st century. Instead of a Moon base and a Space Station we got Food Stamps and Public housing projects, thanks to the vote buying scams of the Left.

Thoughts and trivia.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know the USSR was trying to make Mars a reality for years? It had something to do with it being the "Red" Planet. *chuckle* Go figure - wonder what would've happened if they succeeded.. Imagine the national pride/unity/etc. they would've had.

At any rate, let's take a journey through time. Russians: First in space. US: First on the moon. Russians: First truly manned space station. Russians: First vodka in space. Russians: First station used for a damn sight longer than it was supposed to be.

My bet's on the fact that the Russians have a clue as to what they're doing - especially given the fact that during the days of the USSR, they were indeed plotting on how to get to Mars.

Combine that with the US and other space programs, and I'd say we could figure out how to get us there and back. Wouldn't you say?

Now, the real issue - money. How expensive is this going to be? Would it be worth it? I'd say yes. I'd love to see more interest generated in space travel, and I'd like to see Nasa watched more carefully and have more funds availible, to ensure that our space-related tech continues to improve. I'd like to view the Earth from above just once before I die.

It's a selfish view, though. How many people are starving, in the US and Russia, let alone the rest of the world? How many schools could we upgrade for the cost of such a mission? How many other altruistic earthbound plans could we put into action?

I think that's what people and governments will look at. I just hope they've a bunch of selfish asses who also want to get into space, like me. ;)

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Bold, daring, and, most importantly, very insightful.

Erm, duh?

[Anonymous Coward]

You remember that guy you know? The one who's always bumming cigarettes off of you, or a buck for a tip, or a cold brew? Never seems to have any money, but somehow he can go out and buy new cd's and stuff for his car all the time?

He's Russia. ;)

Please bring back the Pathfinder..

[Frank of Earth]

.. so we can put it in the Smithsonian.

Thanks ;-)

betcha

[Augur]

A nuclear nuke of the flag spot on the Moon would be enough to please you?

Cost pah! Political will

[Anonymous Coward]

The cost is irrelevant next to the political will to do such a thing. It sounds crap but the truth is that where there's a will there's a way, provided that will is a sufficiently big political one.

One "good" thing

[sean23007]

One good thing that could come of this is a renewal of the "arms race mentality" between the US and Russia. If the Russians and the ESA get together and go to Mars, and at first we tell them to go suck a fig, then after a little while when the Russia/Europe partnership starts to work out, we're going to want to get back in it because the good ol' USA doesn't like to be beat to the punch by anyone. This arms race mentality would be much more likely to be instilled if the Russians go in with the Chinese and the Japanese rather than the Europeans.

If the idea comes about that "we must beat them no matter what," then we're going to go do it. That's what happened with the Moon, but in the current state of affairs, it will not happen with Mars. Say what you will, and I absolutely love peace, but the fear that came along with the Cold War got us to do some amazing things. Man, would I love to see us go to Mars.

Re:Please no! Please no, not the atmosphere!

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning that much rocket fuel would turn our atmosphere in to that of Venus's!

Yeah... and if we test that A-Bomb, God only knows what might happen... we might just ignite the atmosphere and kill us all...

Oh.. wait. That didn't happen did it. Oh.. wait.. we've been launching rockets for *YEARS* now and we've probably gotten a million times more pollution and global warming from all the leaky air conditioners and refrigerators and car emissions than we've gotten from every space mission ever flown...

If you are so concerned about the environment, why don't you get rid of your car, and convince everyone else in your city/town to do the same, and promote public transportation instead...???

Moon base...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would prefer to see us setup a permanent base on the moon. We could learn so much more... how to create a *sustainable* environment... hydroponic gardening for food and oxygen, mining of metals, smelting them in low-G environments, a magnetic launcher to get them into space and then maybe thing about building a deep-space/mars manned mission...

Imagine all the money spent on the Hubble telescope, and how much of a pain it is to repair floating out in space. Now imagine an even larger telescope, or an array of telescopes, made from materials found on the moon... think of the science in *that*!

Plus... we send married couples up, or at least both sexes.. at some point we wind up with the 1st baby born in a low-G environment..

We'd have a better base for locating those 'killer asteroids' before they hit the earth... an easier base to launch some kind of missile or 'tugboat' rocket to get it out of the danger path... and, if all else fails, as long as the base is self-sufficient... when all of us down here die a horrible death from the impact, once all the dust settles we'll have someone up there to reseed earth with plants, and humans...

the way out of the CO2 prison

[js7a]

If you are so concerned about the environment, why don't you get rid of your car, and convince everyone else in your city/town to do the same, and promote public transportation instead...???

I can do better. I can promote telecommuting over a much wider area. So can you.

Feed the starving Russians...

[Anonymous Coward]

... by giving them jobs working on the Mars mission.
Where do you think that $20bn goes if it doesn't go on paying people to do things?

Just fake it..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey NASA faked the moon landing - why not just fake the mars landing to drum up some support for the poor excommunist state?

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Modify ISS and fly that to Mars. All we'd need then is to develop something to launch from ISS to the Martian surface, and be capable of blasting off back to ISS!

Problem solved.

Oh the neat bit is that we've solved the problem of ISS funding all at the same time; otherwise we'd need to fund the construction of an interplanetary ship AS WELL AS keep ISS funded in its existing state.

Admit it - its cool isn't it?

Oh, and the most important part is that I, Commander AC, should over see the entire project! ;)

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you missed Proton, Soyuz and Zenit. (Hint: I think they launched a Soyuz rocket to the ISS a couple of days ago).

As for usefulness, why didn't we send up Zarya and Zvezda in the Shuttle. I wonder why it sat on top of a Proton rocket into orbit?

Dumbass.

Re:If International Space Station Is An Indicator.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your seem to be assuming that the mission would be earth based (like the Apollo monn missions). A more likely, and FAR more cost and resource efficient approach would be to ferry all the supplies and parts to the ISS, and use it like it was ment to be used, as a staging base for space exploration and discovery.

You would construct all the pieces of the space ship, and all the things necessary for the trip on the Earth, farry them up the the ISS with the shuttles, and then assemble and do all the testing and prep in space, using the ISS like a large drydock (or spacedock!:) if you will. The anormous fule costs you talk about is for an Earth based launch. Launching the ship from the ISS would require trivial amounts of fule, compared to and Earth launch.

It is dissapointing that NASA went with the Earth launch, discard everything approach with previous moon missions. If they had done an Earth-Orbit-Rondevuois, like some segested, and built that interstellar-travel infastructure, we might have already been to Mars by now.

Shuttle was copied for military reasons

[Brother52]

At the time, Shuttle was the only technology to bring stuff (read: enemy satellites) back to Earth. If not mlilitary reasons, Buran would never be built - just because of its the cost.

Technically, Buran was far superior (it was designed much later), yet not enough economically effective to survive in the new times.

BTW, in 70s, one Russian scientist did a research that showed a real possibility of Shuttle dropping an atomic bomb from a very low orbit. This triggered some significant changes in our defence structures.

Moon mission

[Brother52]

As Grechko - a famous Russian cosmonaut, said in his interview, the primary reason for not sending a manned moon mission was lack of perspective: "OK, we'll get there, what then?". It would be roughly as expensive as building an orbital station - which proven to be a good choice (much better, I think).

what a wimp way. why dont we stay on mars.

[buswolley]

Go to marsnews.com we can get a system of constant colonization for 20 Billion. Cmon space angencies dont dream high enough.

Energia.ru Mars data

[dvk]

Lunar mission data

N1 rocket (Saturn V equivalent if memeory servers me well).

Cheers,
Dan

World Wildlife Fund for Nature Report

[Tarazis]

O.k. just a further slight rant on the state of the planet.....the world wildlife fund for nature releaced a report yesterday that states that their is only about another 150 years of resorces left on this planet. that if we continue at the pace were going things are going to start getting bad about 2030. that by 2050 we'll need another planet the size of Earth just to keep up....the full report can be found at http://www.panda.org/news/press/news.cfm?id=3017 Hope you are all keeping well and all that.....have a nice day....:>

Russia will fail ! they will be using 60 year old

[geekster_2000]

propellant mass propulsion having astronomical
probabilities for failure.

Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics

his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
using Propellantless Mass

http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm

He says he has looked at and researched the world's space agencies, aerospace
companies, universities research, and corp. research and feels very confident
knowing others technology while no one knows his.

He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec

he says he plans on claiming MARS as His Own!!