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."

Comments

What if they're right?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

My first reaction on reading this, like the Russian bigwigs', was "bullshit." A Mars mission for a signle percentile of the estimated cost, with funding from a TV show? It sounds like every bad sci-fi "masterpiece" ever written by an over-enthusiastic fourteen-year-old.

But ... what if they know something NASA and the Russian equivalent don't know? I mean, just about every time some obscure group of private would-be genius inventors announces something great, it turns out to be vaporware. But every once in a while, these obscure people turn out to be the Wright brothers, or Goddard.

So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?

Re:What if they're right?

[Total_Wimp]

They don't even really need to know anything that great. They just have to be willing to send 6 people up there without anything close to the amount of scientific discovery beforehand that everyone else is counting on paying for.

All they need is:

big-ass rocket
decent size living area
lots of food (garden)
a doctor as part of the crew
a crew that accepts the (very substantial) risk
a return craft

If they don't test things overly much then they shouldn't have too much of a problem getting that for $3.5 Billion.

No one else is willing to risk 6 lives that recklessly, hence they pay a lot more.

TW

Quite possible, because...

[heretic108]

...in Russia, in aerospace/military contracts, it's unlikely the gov would be paying $1100 for a screwdriver, $90 for a single common LED, $150 for a single rack-mounting bolt etc.

If a New Zealander can construct a viable cruise missile for less than $5000US, then quite possibly $3.5B would go as far in Russia as $200B goes in the USA

Viewpoint

[jay-oh-eee!]

It's funny, the Russians say it'll take $6.5 billion, privately funded, officials say it's impossible on such a budget. The Bush administration says it'll take $12 billion over five years, without setting a definitive timeline for a mission. "Experts" say it'll take upwards of a TRILLION $ and suspect it to happen, at the soonest, a decade. Everyone is just speculating, estimating and without any real plan or budget.
Sounds simplistic but what happens if we just split the bill?

Re:Viewpoint

[silentbozo]

When the "experts" talk about the upwards of 1 Trillion, they probably (and perhaps rightly so) are taking into account the massive amounts of pork-barreling it will take to grease the wheels for the duration of the time it will take to plan, build, launch, and recover the mission. All it takes is a few assholes to make some sort of fuss over jobs, environmental impact, better uses for the money, etc. and WHAM, everything slams to a halt. They (meaning the politicians who are potential wrenches in the gears) know this, and so do the people doing the planning. Thus the 1 Trillion has to include the payola to these individuals to let the Mars mission alone.

At least... that's my theory. Whether it's maliciously deliberate or not, these individuals (who move in and out of the halls of power on revolving doors) can make everything grind to a halt. For the government to do anything on this scale requires that they keep these bozos happy and well away from the space program. All it takes is an election year, and you can see what happens if a challenger decides to take his (or her) axe to the incumbent's supported programs.

Contrast this to a private endeavor, where if the space mission fails, the company fails (or at least, is greatly diminished.) There is little incentive to burn money on stupid arguments, and great incentive to make it work the first time around. Can it be done in 6.5 billion? Given that the Russians still have the infrastructure to do this sort of thing, and that for pork-barrel politics we'd end up having to build such a thing from scratch (to spread the work around to enough congressional districts), that's one big cost that they can avoid. However, I have to say, this group's mission description (fly 6 men to the surface of Mars, funded in part by a reality program) sounds a bit fly-by-night to me.

The earlier Russian proposal (put a station in Mars orbit and teleoperate robot probes/construction equipment from there) sounds like the one that is most likely to succeed. Fewer problems with having to enter/escape a gravity well, not having to deal with all the damn dust, and ease of construction (just put more modules up.)

Re:Sweet

[the_mad_poster]

Yea, right. Don't get your hopes up. If part of your plan involves a "reality TV show"... well, maybe you shouldn't be taken too seriously until you produce something more than a press conference...

Mars for Real

[skywolf]

Do I believe that going to Mars could be done for 3.5 billion, leaving in four years time? Not yet. What we really need is cheap and reliable space access. When this is achieved, everything space-related will surely become an order of magnitude cheaper.

The only thing that I like about this article is the notion that a voyage to Mars could be made into a reality TV show. Because that's what it should be.

Space exploration is exactly that - exploration, and not science. Every time I turn on the news, I hear of a group that's trying to mountain-bike to the pole, or walk to the pole unsupported, or hot-air balloon to the pole, or walk there backwards. It's so futile it makes me weep.

I believe that exploration is a human need, important to us even when it serves no tangible purpose. Leave the poles to the Scientists. It's time to head for Mars!

Re:safe?

[Daneboy]

But then again, your spaceship probably wouldn't have any $5,000 toilet seats, right?! :-) NASA tech is overrated! They STILL haven't found anything better to do with those huge empty space shuttle external fuel tanks than just let them burn up after each use. How 'bout a little boost to get 'em into orbit, then doing something with 'em? I mean, there's got to be SOMEthing useful we could in space with a handful of big, sturdy, airtight containers. Live in them, store stuff in them, build something in them, whatever -- but using them as giant disposable lighters just can NOT be the most cost-efficient thing...

So, uh, do they plan on getting them back?

[misleb]

You know, I love hearing about all these crazy plans to go to Mars, but it seems like very few people actually plan for the return trip. I assume they plan on getting these astronauts back. Visiting mars isn't like visiting the moon. They'll need to construct facilities to launch a return vehicle (and manufacture fuel, etc) That would be a pretty major undertaking. Maininging basic life support will be challenging enough...

-matthew

Backer?

[WindBourne]

I doubt that this company really has the financial backing to do this. But upon thinking about it, I suspect that they do. Russia has proven that they can get us there (good rockets) and survive in space (1.5 years vs american 6 months). I am guessing that this group has an American backer who believes in getting us off this rock, but with a real plan. Is there anybody who has been backing space programs? anybody who has backed the X-prize as well as the group who was the front-runner from the gitgo? anybody who fits in the top 10 richest ppl in the world?

I suspect that Paul is backing these guys. This is the same guy who bet on a small software start-up, moved into a new industry called internet over cable ( he started in 1992, before others were even thinking of it), and now backs Burt Rutan for the X-prize. In addition, he is backing seti, and had monorail ran through his rock muesum. Quit a few accomplishments.

Re:Sweet

[Zakabog]

YEAH! Exactly! You're so right, we should never send humans to mars cause since the second they step outside the space craft they will contaminate the whole planet. And don't give me any nonsense about them using sterile suits (like those make believe bunny suits the Intel guys wear, we all know they're really working on that stuff completely naked!) How would you even manage to get a suit on an astronaut, that's immpossible. And how would you seal it so no contaminents get out? You'd need some kind of air tight suit for space, we can call it a space suit. And we all know those don't exist so we should deffinitely hold off on human exploration of mars till we can invent "space suits."

Ahem, to quote the Daily Show "That's a stupid thing to say, and you're a stupid person for saying it."

April Fool's joke !?

[uss_valiant]

About the same story was on telepolis (German online magazine) on April 1st 2004 ("Europa und Russland starten 2009 erste bemannte Mars-Expedition" (German) (Europe and Russia launch the first manned expedition to Mars in 2009)). The article on telepolis was obviously a joke and I guess this story also.