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."
Should be just about as feasible as the Bush space plan.
Oh wait...
In Soviet Russia, Mars plans impossible trip to YOU!
It's about time someone set a goal like this. Human expansion to Mars is a great idea -- it will push our technology (and some human beings in the process) to new limits. Personally, I've always wanted to go to Mars... I just don't want to take the trip there. Zero gee ain't for me! (Even if it's just for a while until we get a centrifuge running)
I wonder if I announced my own space program I could get on Slashdot too!!
I'm gonna get there in THREE years and stay for 17 months and only need a taxi and a Swiss Army Knife!!
I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
Alexandrov didn't explain how his firm would raise the funds, but said one of the reasons he thought such a mission would be profitable was it could involve a "reality" television show.
Just what we need. Survivor in space. You don't even want to know what happens to the guy who gets voted off the spaceship.
yes, but if Bush could manage to pull that off (send people to mars for all of $3.5M) that would be a VERY GOOD THING.
Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
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.
... 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.
But
So, what if they pull it off? What actually happens then?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Of course it is nonsense... the russians barely have enough money to keep the country afloat, let alone spend on a manned trip to Mars.
Well, the company funding the project did say it "draws no resources from the state budget." This appears to be a completely privately funded operation.
Still ludicrous, though, considering the technical and logistical challenges. Although I do like the reality TV angle...who wants to start betting on which cosmonaut takes the first shot of vodka in the Mars atmosphere?
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
Seems to me that any "low cost" mission to mars would be suicide seeing as it's still dangerous with expensive NASA tech, I sure wouldn't want to get on a ship for mars that only cost 3.5 billion, seeing as the U.S. has Bombers that cost 1 Billion and a bomber is far simpler than an interplanetary voyage.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Imagine the exclusive tv rights for the entire trip! Plus selling one of the seats to the highest bidder, you could get enough funding if you had a good start and credibility, and didnt blow 40% of the budget on hookers and booze like most government contracters (they then outsource the project for 20% of the budget and keep the rest).
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
While it is indisputable that the technology that is required to travel to Mars and establish a rudimentary colony around the hull of the space craft and any transported plants and animals exists and can be taken to Mars (at great cost), it is highly doubtful that they would be able to bring themselves back from the red planet.
The cost of taking the fuel for the return trip would be absolutely astronomical considering the extensive modifications necessary to ensure that the fuel does not leak over the course of the three year mission.
Besides all that, should we really be sending living organisms to a virtually uncontaminated environment so soon? We have just discovered real evidence of flowing water once existing on the planet, and this in turn could lead to evidence of fossilized microbes and other lifeforms that we would threaten with destruction if we were to introduce Earth microbes that the Martian microbes could not fight.
More study is needed, as is more thought on the impact of colonizing Mars. We will no doubt go there eventually and it may become our home away from home, but sending up a bunch of Russians to tromp around what may be a life-rich planet (under the surface) seems like a mission of putting the cart before the horse.
I have been pwned because my
George has his plan, and Russians have their plan... It looks like the US has been served!
I can see the movie now... Space Race 2: Mars
It'll come to a thrilling climax. The Russian plan is filled with set backs allowing the US to catch up. But the Russians manage to launch first! But the US manages to catch up at the last minute and astronauts from both teams come touching down at nearly the same time.
No one knows who landed first! And there's only one way to prove who gets the title: It's On!
...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
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
I got this news from my 88 year old Grandmother today before it was posted on Slashdot. Oh well so much for getting the tech news fast on a holiday weekend.
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?
Photo Aspect -- an open, free, J2EE & JBoss photoalbu
I'll send them up for 4 years, with a stop on the moon thrown in as a bonus, only for $2 billion. I'd like my money in advance in gold nuggets in unmarked bags please.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
You have been voted off the crew. It's time to say goodbye and enter the airlock.
1) The first stage will be comprised of the entire population standing on each other's shoulders. Distance: 176,000 miles.
2) Thrust for the second stage will be provided by shaken up coke cans. Stick it to those capitalist swine.
3) Remaining thrust will be provided by removing the vacuum tubes from the flight computer and throwing them behind the ship.
4) The return journey... uhh... screw it, let's invade a neighboring country!
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.
webpage
"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 sending 6 people there and bringing them back. Ok, so you got a space craft loaded with a garden, a medical facility, and a way of getting there and back. What they don't tell you is the people are expected to die about 2 months into the jouney, and the exploration on Mars will be done by bots. Afterwards, the robots are to be brought back to earth.
-Grump
Maybe that is what is going to happen, oh well. What do I know, I'm taking a history class, not a futre-ory space travel class.
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
"Who wants to mate with a martian"
"The Red World"
"Space Rules"
"Last Cosmanaut Standing"
"Inter-Planetary Idol"
"Paradise Planet"
and last but not least "Stupid"
It's all good.
Throw in a roll of duct tape, then you're talking.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
3 years? maybe they should send more than one ship. each having enough on board to support the other if a failure happens. it wouldn't be to much fun having an electric failure millions of miles from no where. the aaa takes long enough on earth!
I suppose this group will become the first to claim land for itself on Mars. They can't claim it as an appropriation by claim of sovereignty for Russia, but if it's a private mission they should be able to claim it for themselves, or Fox-Media-Rocket-Corp or whoever.
The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space says nothing about non-state missions, unfortunately. I'm not even sure the rules apply to entities not parties to the treaty.
Is there a doctor of law in the building?
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!
You are going to attempt interplanetary travel without a towel ? jebus you really dont know what your doing
I remember seeing a documentary when I was a child that said that the Soviet (this was coldwar times) Energia-Vulkan rocket could power a mission all the way to mars and back. Apparently Energia Vulkan was scrapped for Energia Buran (the launch rocket for the now defunct Russian shuttle), but Energia Vulkan's design is an Energia Buran with a total of 8 boosters . . . Apparently its not that different from from the Energia Buran (built to launch the now defunct Russian shuttle). A few details here
Is this a new space race I smell? Things like this can ONLY be healthy for the space program. American pride will now be greatly hurt if Russia beats them to Mars. Personally, I feel like cooking some popcorn and taking a decade to eat it.
And does the russian space program have $3.5 billion?
RTFA
Its clearly stated that this is private money and is not a Russian space program project.
If some group had a ship going to mars, how many people would line up to go? How many scientists would be willing to sacrifice their health and safety to be one of the first to set foot on and study another planet?
Simply by being held accountable by the government and the people, NASA is never going to be able to say "Well, this ship will get you there, but we can't guarantee that you will live to make it, and we can't guarantee that you won't get cancer by the time you get back. But hey, you get to go to Mars!"
Where as, a private firm only has to have a lawyer draw up a suitably impressive release of liability, and start charging for tickets.
More power to them, I hope they make it. It will push those damn lolly-gaggers in our over managed space program to actually acheive something instead of throwing money at quadrupal fail-safe indestructible toilet seats.
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
So it seems that the Russians have discovered out-sourcing to India as well.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Low-cost mars mission.....
Low-cost technology.....
Unproven Russian technology....
plus a reality show...
Could we plllleeeease send Donald Trump... and Ryan Seacrest and have the first 'good' space disaster*?
*The only exception being Appolo 13 which was a "good disaster". Tons of stuff went wrong and the mission was a failure. However, nobody got hurt, and the whole ordeal proved twice-over the quality of American engineering and ingenuity.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
In Soviet Russia... The project funds you.
Assuming that this group uses a Proton launcher (the heavy Russian launcher currently used to lift ISS sections and Soyuz spacecraft) they would only be able to lift 44,000 lbs into LEO per launch.
The likely weight for a fully-fueled Mars base would be in the neighborhood of 1 million pounds - and that's being conservative. You not only need the habitation modules, but the garden modules, consumables for three years, and propellant. 2 million might be closer.
That's about 23 launches to just to get all the material in LEO.
A Proton launch costs about $35-$70 million dollars.
That's $1.14 billion, just to get everything into LEO. Even then, that's a conservative estimate. The real costs, depending on weight could be close to $3 billion.
That doesn't include the hundreds of millions in R&D needed to develop a working spacecraft, training for astronauts, keeping a working command and control center for 3 years, insurance, legal fees, or any of the other costs.
In short, this doesn't even pass the smell test.
The Russians had the N-1 moon rocket, which they did not brag about because they blew it up 3 or 4 times and never could get it to work.
One of the beauties of "capitalism" was once the government came up with a Moon program (Apollo, Saturn, lunar-orbit rendezvous), they stuck with it and threw money at it until it happened. One of the ironies of centrally-planned "communism" is that weren't sure if they were even in a race to the Moon, and when it was decided they were in such a race, they scrapped all their earlier plans and decided to follow the plan of the "capitalists" (L-1/LK, N-1, lunar-orbit rendezvous), only their head rocket airframe guy was in some kind of snit with their head rocket engine guy, so he had to get a jet engine guy to build him a rocket engine that was so underpowered that he needed 30 of them on the first stage, and the original rocket engine guy went over to the rival rocket airframe guy who was running steady political interference to get the whole program scrapped and start over with the second rocket airframe guy and the original rocket engine guy.
While the Russian Moon program was underfunded and supposedly got a lot less money than the American one, and would have worked if their rocket didn't blow up, I wonder how may guys they had working on L-1/LK/N-1 and if it was really fewer guys than Apollo/Saturn?
And how is it that the Russians who couldn't get a successful N-1 launch were able to get (I believe) 2 successful Energia launches without any failures. And how many guys did they have working over what period of time to pull that one off? And even given the starvation wages a person makes in Russian aerospace these days, does the small-n billion dollars for a Russian Mars program make sense?
Even if they throw safety out the window, they are going to need to bring back the Energia, which I understand that exists only as an enormous doorstop right now, and the level of effort of the Energia is a minimum requirement for just getting off the ground.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Just keep shooting food to them.
Tim
Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
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 . . .
Where would one find an accredited medical professional willing to commit rocket assisted suicide with 5 strangers who will be sucking vacuume with him when space decides to get "real?" Witch-doctors don't count.
I know that after episode 3 (when they all decide to space themselves after taking a look at their radiation badges and discover they've already got twice their expected trip dosage), I'm flipping the channel. Who wants to watch desecated corpses float for 10 more episodes while Vangelis plays in the background?
Russia's space history is impressive in some areas, but not Mars. I don't think I'd sign up to be an astronaut for this mission when Russia hasn't landed anything on the surface, and most of the orbital probes have failed. The Martian Defense Network takes a toll on everyone, but seems to take special delight in shooting down Russian craft.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Spending money is always better then a tax cut which is pure flushing money down the drain and doesn't help anyone.
Uh, how about the people who have to pay less in taxes? Jeezus Christ. This attitude that tax cuts should only be looked at in a larger economic sense really irritates me. How about looking at it like this:
It's my money! When you raise taxes, you are taking my money away from me! A tax cut is a good thing, in that I get to keep more of my money!
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Those of you interested in the reality TV from space might want to check out Spacestation, an IMAX 3D film about the ISS. It was made two years ago, but is premiered in Russia today, on April 12.
BTW, April 12 is the Cosmonautics Day. 43 years ago Yury Gagarin became a first human ever to fly to space. BTW, during the 43 years that followed, 431 humans have been up there. Think of it, only 10 people per year on average...
Nobody in the US (or in the world for that matter) expected the Soviet space triumth of the 1961. Nobody expects these Russians to pull off their Mars trip. But one thing is for certain - the only way to find the limits of possible is to venture beyond them, into the impossible. Good luck to those trying!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Zubrin has said before that the $trillion price-tags for a mars mission were wildly overinflated, and suggests a way that it can be done for around $20 billion/mission.
Off the rop of my head, each Soyuz mission costs Russia about $60 million - compare that to the $500 million/shuttle-mission cost ("cheap reusable"), or the sky high costs proposed for the possible replacements..
So yes, I think it could be possible that the Russians could do it all for a few $Billion - they dont mind taking a few more risks too. Whether these particular people are the right people to do it - that is another issue - a few Billion is still a lot of doe to hand over to someone.
As for the USA, I say if they dont want to give the money to Russia, let people like Rutan have some & see what comes out of it.
NASA seem to have lost the ability to effectively stage such a project, at least at an affordable cost. The whole question arises as to whether government agencys are the best way to exploit a technology, once it has reached a certain level of maturity. Zubrin wrote an excellent article comparing NASA productivity 61-73 (Apollo motivated) vs the Shuttle years - NASA were so much more productive, for much the same cash when focused on Apollo..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
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.
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?
Home Automation & Linux -- now I know I'm a geek
Why not mix the popularity of the reality show "Survivor" with the hazards-be-damned attitude of the Russian space industry? Each week, someone gets voted off the spaceship, and FOOMP! Out the airlock they go.
NASA has many conflicting goals, a big bureaucracy, a risk-adverse culture. The Russian, Chinese, or private enterprise approach may be able to do this more cost-effectively than NASA, though probably not for as little as $3.5 billion.
I prefer the "evolutionary" private enterprise approach like as in the current x space contest. Start out with doable million dollar increments of financing and goals.
Oh man, you've been at the Democratic Institute for Tax & Spending Economic Theory too long. It's my money, not the government's money. The government has a responsibiity to do as much as it can while stealing as little of my money as possible. How anyone can suggest that the government stealing and spending more of my money is always better than letting me keep my money is just incredible.
The whole belief that government somehow knows how to spend money better than the taxpayers or somehow does it more efficiently betrays the underlying B.S. in much liberal-think.
Plan is simple: fake a trip to Mars. People thought was possible back in 1969, but now we know is possible -- digital effects technology has come long way. I mean, with $3 billion we could pay animators to hand-craft every pixel of footage. It will look totally believeable.
Fake trip to Mars solves all major problems with human space flight:
Problems:
Well, for morality's sake, our first duty is to lecture these people sternly about what idiots they are. When this doesn't work, we can sell them seats in Mars Settlement Simulator. This is big airtight tin can containing 1000 switches and 1000 tins of Spam. Every day, "passengers" are required to flip a switch... otherwise can explodes. If passengers run out of Spam, they die of starvation. One of the switches is secretly wired to shut off can's air supply... when it is switched, passengers unexpectedly die of asphyxiation. If passengers make it through 800 days, we open up can to reveal Gobi Desert, where they are free to wander around until they get bored and decide to go home.
I figure we can get $1M each for these seats -- after all, they are very good simulation of real trip! But passengers may get mad because they don't get weightlessness for their money. Such passengers will be airlifted to secret Russian base at Sanduski where they can ride Weightlessness Simulators until they pass out.
Unfortunately it goes like this: the feds cut taxes, the feds then have less money to give to states in the form of block grants, states then have shortfalls in funding for education, transportation, safety, ect. States make up for this shortfall by raising taxes (income, sales, property, ect), raising fees (tuition, business, license, ect) and cutting funding to anyone that gets state money. John Q. Public (that's you) then gets bent over with higher taxes and fees from states, counties, cities, as well as state funded enterprises such as universities. Any increased fees paid by businesses or professionals gets levied back onto the consumer. I am amazed that after hounding the left about "no free lunch" that the right engages in the exact same kind of games. There is no free lunch. The liberatarian fantasy about no taxes and making everything pay as you go is just that: pure fantasy. Every road a toll-road, every sidewalk a toll-sidewalk, every bikepath a toll-bikepath, victim of a crime or acciendt you get to pay the ENTIRE cost for the emergancy services. It does not work.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt