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."
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
...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.
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.
Same thing that happens in the restaurant every Easter. Russia will offer to pay half, knowing full well that USA will want to pay most of it to be the "good guy", and having no intention of paying any of it. Russia will then make a playful attempt to snatch the bill off the table, at which point USA will poke Russia with a car key, forcing Russia to drop the bill. Russia will then give up its ambitions on the ISS (oops Mars) and then USA will pay for everything.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Of course, there's the alternate explaination of the 1 Trillion figure - which is that it's completely made up.
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
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
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 */
In Soviet Russia, the obligatory jokes make themselves!
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.