Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
...$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!
I honestly don't see how they are going figure that one out. How do you decide when everyone involved is putting up billions?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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
hookers and grits.
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.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
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).
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
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?
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
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:
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
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
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.)
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
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.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.