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...
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I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.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.
Is this why its called the red planet?
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
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.
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
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.
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...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
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...
"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
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.
Doesn't it seem more likely that our microbial organisms wouldn't stand a chance against Martian organisms fighting on their own turf? What makes Earth organisms so tough?
Come to think of it, we should send well armed Earth bacteria to Mars in a preemptive assault against those mad, raving Martian microbes frothing at the mouth for their chance to dominate our culture. It's the patriotic duty of all Earth citizens to help liberate the Red Planet!
Dramatic conflict is better for TV ratings.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
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
So it seems that the Russians have discovered out-sourcing to India as well.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
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.
Sterilization isn't as difficult as you seem to think, especially when said "dirty infectious human[s]" would be encased in tough spacesuits which would be easy to sterilize chemically.
Do you have any links to back up your assertion? While the cruise missile guy exists [aardvark.co.nz] (although he did not actually build the missile, just asserted it was theoretically possible), I have found nothing about the stealth bomber's necessity to be repainted.
Taken from the this site:
Stealth coatings present a host of other problems. To be effective, the plane's surface must be kept perfectly slick. Exposure to rain or hail can cause nicks and scratches that dramatically increase the craft's radar signature. Even optimal flying conditions take a toll on a plane's skin. In a study released in June 1998, congressional investigators who observed a B-2 after one test flight reported that the plane "had damaged tape, caulk, paint, and heat tiles.... In addition, we observed hydraulic fluid leaks beneath the aircraft that further damaged the caulk."
If you dig around google, you will find other relavent links as well.
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...
/* "Specialization is for insects." -Heinlein */
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
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 . . .
In Soviet Russia, the obligatory jokes make themselves!
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.
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."
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?
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.
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.