Slashdot Mirror
Russian Group Plans Manned Mars Mission By 2011
weekendwarrior1980 writes "A group of Russian space experts on Friday announced an ambitious plan to send a six-man crew to Mars within a decade, a project it said would cost only $3.5 billion. Russian space officials dismissed the project as nonsense. They plan to have 6 people explore Mars for months before returning to Earth. The Mission would take 3 years, and would depend on fully equipped spacecraft containing its own garden, medical facilities etc."
So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?
I'm glad you asked, I have a three part plan for just this kind of event.
Step 1: I drink a toast to the people that pulled this off.
Step 2: I laugh at NASA and the Russian equivalent.
Step 3: My life remains mostly unaffected.
Finkployd
The correlation between funding and safety is rather a weak one. Our government may not be able to work as efficiently as this group and the engineers at NASA may not be as dedicated to the project. The largest problem this group faces is securing any funding at all and being able to set up the facilities to get this project done. It is analagous to a big business and a small business working on the same thing.
_____
Thank you.
Ahh, whatever...
If someone wants to risk their life to be the first human to land on another planet AND they can find someone to pay for it, I say let 'em go.
All the unmanned exploration in the pristine Mars will not advance the human cause as much as landing people there. Not only are there bound to be large scientific break throughs from the effort, but there are bound to be large psychological break throughs as well. And it ultimately is a great insurance policy for the survival of the human species.
As an aside if anyone hasn't read Red Mars / Blue Mars / Green Mars (by Kim Stanley Robinson) its a great triology that deals with the colonization mars in a really interesting way. So if you're looking for something to read, check it out...
In all honesty, I wish the Russians had the American budget. They have proven their worth more than once in innovation, and it's a shame they can no longer afford it.
The russians prove their ingenuity b/c they have to or they don't get it done b/c they don't have the budget. THey have to figure other ways to do things. When I was first entering the workforce, it seemed as if all the russians produced really good tight code. We later realized why, you have to be efficient if your equipment is obsolete. Nothing bad here, just an observation
A ship with its own garden? 3 years? I assume that they want to create a somewhat sustainable ecosystem . . . We couldn't even get that right on Earth . . . see biosphere 2 This sounds more than a little idealistic . . .
Three things:
/. without a reference, and that 1 million pounds for an expedition definitely sounds like a number out of thin air. Without looking at their designs, it's really impossible to speculate on the final weight/mass of the vehicle.
First off, your assumption that they will use Proton rockets may be wrong - they may use a reconstructed Russian variant of a Saturn V, and launch everything in one or two trips. There's another post on this article that suggests alternatives to the Proton.
Secondly, I don't trust many numbers thrown around on
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why go into orbit to assemble your vehicle? Why not launch it pre-assembled on a big-ass rocket (see pt. 1) and go straight for mars or whatever bodies you're using for a gravity assist trajectory? Going into orbit uses a lot of energy, and I really don't see the need for it. A lot of sci-fi involves orbital assemblies, but when you do the math it's not actually that practical...
All that being said however, I agree that I can't see this mission flying. It reeks of overly optimistic budgeting designed to secure enough venture capital to get some executives a fun, well paying job for a few years before the project dies in a sea of red ink.
Point is, even if Russia can't pull off the funding, it would be a nice thing to try.
America puts safety first in high risk operations these days. the 'flying by the seat of your pants' days of the space race are over. there is too much public pressure for NASA to make any mistakes, so anything with too much risk is out of the question. how in the world will America be able to accomplish such a risky operation like going to Mars with all this public pressure?
However, Russia is the perfect candidate (and always has been) for testing extremely high risk equipment and/or situations. why? because although Russia thinks about safety, it's not the number one concern; the number one concern is success.
when Russia loses a cosmonaut in some accident, they don't halt their space program for years at a time for a complete investigation. they theorize what the problem could be, make adjustments and press on.
If the world really wants to put a human on planet Mars in the next 20 years, the best idea would be for the world (including USA) to fund Russia to accomplish such a mission. I guarentee they will do it for the smallest amount of money and in the shortest amount of time.
Ok so maybe they have boosters and capsules in production they can reuse and save engineering costs. But which lander would they be reusing?
I don't remember any hardware other than the LEM that could land humans. So the lander they have to engineer pretty much from scratch. It's not a small bit of hardware either. On it's own wouldn't that use their entire budget?