Slashdot Mirror
US & Russia Pencil in Mars Launch by 2018
snilloc writes "The Washington Times is reporting that the US and Russia (and the Europeans are mentioned too) are planning for an eventual manned Mars trip. Suggested launch years are 2014 or 2018. The article discusses unmanned probes at greater length than the manned plans, but check out the Russian isolation experiment where 6 people will spend 500 days in a simulated spacecraft environment. (Sounds like a good reality TV show to me.)"
I thought the ESA was going to do the same thing, around 2009? Why not co-operate a little, and share the costs?
In need of reliable and affordable server monitoring?
-- (Score:i, Imaginary)
I am all for space exploration, and taking a closer look at Mars is wonderful and all, I'm glad someone is scouting out area for my future apartment, but don't we remember what happened LAST time we partnered with Russia on something outside of our atmosphere? The wretched travesty of the ISS is now loping along in a slowly descending orbit, is years and years behind what it was supposed to be, and will, more than likely, never live up to the high aspirations that were originally held for the Freedom, the space station that the United States planned for years before the global consortium got together on the ISS.
Russia is simply not a viable partner, not due to their science (they were in the cold war too, after all) but their financial instability. It's not their fault, but it shouldn't become our space program's problem (again).
You seem to forget that the US doesn't even have a reliable way of getting men into orbit right now, let alone anything more ambitious.
The only thing from stopping the ISS from dropping out of orbit is Russian robot supply craft that are also nudging it higher, and the only way US astronauts will get to/from the ISS before the Shuttle design is fixed (without risking their lives) is via Russian spacecraft.
Seriously, apart from the bragging rights to say "We put the first man on Mars", what benefit is there to having the US, Russia, ESA and Britain all working independently towards sending probes/manned trips to Mars? If a team made up of the best minds from each of those agencies were to work together, they'd not only be ready to land on Mars sooner, but they'd save billions in the process.
And before that it was 2008, now its 2018? Just face it, we will never go to Mars in our lifetime, and why? Because the government doesnt want to give NASA the money to go.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Fifteen years may as well be fifty in terms of Russian economic and political stability, not to mention international relations.
The article is light on logistical details, but assuming that we're more Robert Zubrin than we are BattleStar Galactica, the mission will involve a long period of technological development followed by deployments of resources in advance of human explorers. That's a long time for a lot of factors to remain "in the window", IMHO. Even the ISS didn't manage to remain entirely in that window, and that was far more flexible in terms of planets lining up and such.
I'm pleased at least to see that it's on the TODO list at NASA, but I don't take this too seriously.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Ok, you can stay home, then. The rest of us have places to go.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The simple fact is that we're probably not going to get to Mars in the next 20 years, it simply isn't as simple as people would like to think. Most of the problems revolve around the fact that any expedition to mars would last up to 3 years(apollo 11 took around a week) and for the great majority of this the team would have to cope with problems unaided. Consider this: The CLOSEST that mars gets to earth is 86.5 million KM which means that any communication with the earth is going to take 5 minutes to get there and the response 5 minutes to get back. That means that for any problem that can't be solved in 10 minutes you're completely on your own. The astronauts on Apollo 13 would have been doomed had they had a 10 minute communication lag with ground control. other problems include sickness (its going to happen if you're away for months and illness that are trivial to cure on earth would be major problems halfway to mars, not to mention the degeneration of muscles, bones and the heart caused by being weightless for long periods of time), nutrition(how do we keep our astronauts in tip top shape for months on end when we have no way of getting food to them), radiation and pyschological problems (think being couped up in a space the size of your living room with 5 people for a couple of years). Yes, most of these problems are solvable (especially if we develop a technology considerably faster than chemically fuelled rockets) but the fact is almost everything that a manned mission would achieve can be done for less money and risk by robots. Its just not going to happen.
All that glitters has a high refractive index.
On reflection, I would say that you're right. And I suppose that whatever political conflicts arise are likely to be trumped by Russia's need for American dollars for the forseeable future.
This seems like a good roadmap for the cooperation: America as the venture capital, Russia (where needed) as the contractor.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
What part of "no" did the poster of this not understand?
Misreading "NASA...has no plans" as "the US [and Russia] are planning" is pretty bad,even by slashdot standards. I suggest not (note that "not") applying as a rocket scientist until learning how to read a little better than that.
Relevence?
Considering that George W. hasn't ruled out attacking Syria, that he hasn't ruled out some kind of retaliation in regards to France, that he isn't some wimp whose hobbies include "having his penis washed by White House interns", might choose to act on this info (assuming that it is verfied, which as yet it isn't). In short, the Mars trip may be threatened by more than the usual budget issues.
Conclusion?
The geo-political climate of the world is unstable enough that international efforts to reach Mars, or the moon, or even a consensus about countries that harbor terrorism isn't probable. Look for the Mars mission to get cut, and blame to be placed on the budget.
--
Free software, not Iraq, because Gates is evil, and Saddam is just misunderstood.