Slashdot Mirror
Russia Planning Double Mission to Mars
dylanduck writes "Apparently Russia has revived a previous plan to send a spacecraft to Phobos, a tiny Martian moon. Turns out it's a cool place to land - much easier than the surface as far less deceleration is needed, it should have plenty of Mars rocks spattered on the surface and it's just 9000km above the surface. Some think it the perfect place for a Mars moonbase." From the article: "A mission devoted to the moons could explain how the satellites are held together - whether they are piles of rubble loosely held together by gravity or solid chunks. Most scientists assume the heavily cratered moons are captured asteroids, Christensen told New Scientist. But it is actually quite hard for a planet to capture an object into its orbit - most things just skim by. 'So how it got there is a bit of an enigma,' Christensen says."
Just like our own Moon, Mars' moons were probably formed at the same time that Mars was formed. As the galactic dust swirled around the Sun, it slowly clumped together and grew into large planets. As each planet grew larger, they became an elliptical focal point for the surrounding space dust and trapped moons into orbit around themselves.
So that's why we have moons around planets. It's also why they rotate and revolve very periodically.
Phobos is going to be just like our moon. Dead.
Better to send a probe to one of those moons with liquid like Titan or Europa. Much more interesting things to find there.
In fact, I would think the planet is a safer place to be than the moons. The moons would have no atmosphere to speak of and are therefore completely exposed to cosmic rays and meteorites that make space so dangerous. Plus, the vacuum requires greater relative internal pressure in the ship or base station. On the Martian surface, even though the atmosphere is not breathable, at least there's some pressure there.
Although, I suppose you'd want an underground facility on Mars because of those nasty sandstorms.
With regards to the pioneering spirit, while I'm with you 100%, I believe that it's really individuals and not countries that have the spirit of exploration. Remember that the U.S. only got its space act together because of perceived Soviet superiority and the fear they would dominate space militarily. Now, probably, China and the E.U. will provide the competition that pushes the U.S. back into space in the next couple of decades.
But with a cheap launch technology, it's the individuals who will truly explore space. Once we're out of Earth's gravity well, private explorers could pretty much go anywhere provided they stocked enough food. Solar cells will provide unlimited energy, and a solar sail the unlimited propulsion. Advanced recycling equipment will minimize the loss of water and other necessities, and a decent internet connection will keep the travelers from feeling too cut off.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
I know money could be spent elsewhere, but hey, isn't it the exploratory nature of humans to venture into the unknown?
You know, I hate to break it to you but most exploration missions of the past were privately funded, either by capitalists in search of new opportunities, or by rich idealists. Those that were publicly funded were for geopolitical reason, the most obvious example being the race to the moon.
So, since no private enterprise today has enough cash to fund something that big, and the US government has nobody to flex muscles at anymore, and the US deficit is already big enough thanks to our recent exploration of Iraq, who will fund the mars mission?
As for the Russians, well, I'll believe they can do it when they can feed their population adequately without any external subsidies.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I am all for increasing space exploration, and by all means the more people (or countries) at the party the better, but has there been any coverage of how they plan to pay for this effort?
They had serious problems meeting their obligations for the ISS, they operated MIR on a shoestring, the economy is improving but do they have the cash for it?
I hope they do. I hope the US shakes more money loose from the trees for our own programs as well.
What do you know I wrote a novel
This is just another example of the political rhetoric we hear on a daily basis. They say they're going to go to Mars, but it won't happen. Just like Bush said the US would go to the moon and Mars. It won't happen. This is just a case of politicians being politicians, and spewing out promises that will never be acted upon. Give this a few hours and we'll have forgotten about it.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
...who will fund the mars mission?
... a consortium of companies. Imagine this: IBM, Microsoft, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, Mojave Aerospace, Scaled Composites, Johnson & Johnson, McDonalds, Apple, Coca-Cola, and a whole group of large companies got together, and invested a small portion of their profits for two years into a Mission to Mars program. It could be done. They could form a company just for that (ala the IOC), and of course, there would be advertising. They could all be "Proud Sponsors of the Mission to Mars" in much the same way they all pay to help with the Olympics.
Use the Olympic model, and
libertarianswag.com
Read Zubrin's book. There's nothing on the moon. It costs more to land on the moon and then have to get off again, because even though there is less gravity, you still need to break to get to the moon, and then more propellant to get back off. Once you're off Earth, there's no sense in re-encountering gravity when you can go straight to Mars without having to land and take off again.
;)
Seriously, for everyone who thinks this, go read the book, and you'll learn to stop parroting the "let's go to the moon first" bit, just like I did.
libertarianswag.com
This is why I have you marked as "friend": so I know I'll always catch shit like this even if the mods are asleep at the switch. Very nice.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
They could form a company just for that (ala the IOC), and of course, there would be advertising. They could all be "Proud Sponsors of the Mission to Mars" in much the same way they all pay to help with the Olympics.
Do you really hope to get a bunch of companies to pony up billions of dollars for a risky mission into the unknown, and tell them they'll have a return on investment with advertising alone? now that's naive...
The olympics model works because the initial investment isn't all that great (compared to a mars mission anyway), it's super-safe, it guarantees return on investment with ads, but also derivative products, direct sales, and (most important) the use of much admired athletes as walking talking billboards: Nike will sell shoes by getting some sportsman to wear them, the underlying idea being that *you too can be that man with our shoes*. They won't sell any if the only thing they can say is *the shoe that goes to Mars*.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
.. it should have plenty of Mars rocks spattered on the surface
...
Funny that they mentioned it...
Can anyone explain how can 'a plenty of rocks' leave Mars and land on its moon ?
Bonus question is to explain the appearance of 'martian meteorits' on Earth.
Somehow I have troubles imagining the level of volcanic activity required to catapult rocks to the neighbouring planets
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Wouldn't it just be easier to form an International Space Agency?
It probably would, but it'll won't get done anytime soon. Maybe people should just forget about nationalism; it's damaging the entire world's progress.
at this moment.
Worse, with a growing deficit, we may not be able to afford it. Right now, China and the Middle east are proping up the deficit . But both groups are deciding that they would rather start buying our companies and skip supporting the deficit. If that happens, then the only way to attract money to finance it is to increase bond rates, which will increase prime. As it is, with prime going up, the economy is slowing again.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wish I could find a more official article, but this is the first one I found on google:
;)
"In 1965, two cosmonauts overshot their touchdown site by 1,200 miles and found themselves deep in a forest with hungry wolves. That's when Russian space officials decided to pack a sawed-off shotgun aboard every spacecraft. It took Russian search crews more than two hours to locate the spacecraft and another two hours for helicopters to get support crews to the landing site."
From http://www.usa4id.com/ciwc/SawedOff.htm
As it is, they'd be more prepared than any Americans in space if they happened to open the gates of hell
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
But with a cheap launch technology, it's the individuals who will truly explore space. Once we're out of Earth's gravity well, private explorers could pretty much go anywhere provided they stocked enough food. Solar cells will provide unlimited energy, and a solar sail the unlimited propulsion. Advanced recycling equipment will minimize the loss of water and other necessities, and a decent internet connection will keep the travelers from feeling too cut off.
Many of those problems have already been solved by the ocean liner industry. Under financial pressure to reduce operating costs, they have been working on ways of make cruise ships more fuel efficient (using azipods), along with working out ways to make life comfortable for passengers, the 'space ratio').
Some (the Queen Mary 2) even have their own planetarium.
If we could work out how to build or launch something like one of these liners in Earth orbit (using standard construction techniques), and add radiation shielding, we could cruise the solar system in style and safety.
The specification of an ocean liner read like something out of Star Trek.
Power consumption = 118 Megawatts,
Propulsive power = 86 Megawatts
Steering = 4 azipods (2 fixed, 2 directional)
Decks = 15
Cabins = 1330 (all with Internet access)
Passengers = 2620
Crew = 1310
For comparision, the space shuttle can transport 200 tonnes back to Earth (landing weight), and consumes 7 - 12 Kilowatts of power for all of its electrical systems, while the booster rockets and main engines are rated at 11.7 GigaWatts
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads