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

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!

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

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).

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?

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

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: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. :(