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."

24 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Late Breaking News: by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Once more, panic swept across our fair world when it was revealed by the Council that the invaders from the evil blue planet intend to assault our innermost fortress satellite.
    The fortress satellites, which have stood guard over our world since the Council placed them into orbit over ninety Great Cycles ago, have easily fought off all invaders in the past. Against the cunning machines manufactured by the disgusting water bags inhabiting the evil blue planet, however, the fortress satellites may be more vulnerable than previously thought.

    K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:

    "Once again, the evil blue planet seeks to make filthy war against us. They think that by invading and neutralizing one of our fortress satellites, they will secure some measure of victory. Let me assure you, that is far from the truth. The Great Council placed the two fortress satellites in orbit over ninety Great Cycles ago, and have we not advanced since then? Today, at our present level of development, we could easily field two eights-of-eights that number. I know I speak for the Council when I laugh at the pathetic scrabblings of the evil blue planet!"

    When asked if rumours were true that the faction of blue-planet-inhabitants responsible for the threatened invasion was the same as the one who had just recently failed utterly to launch a primitive solar sail device into space, K'Breel laughed maniacally.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  2. With all this talk of going to Mars... by bc90021 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...people should really pay more attention to Robert Zubrin. If you haven't read his book, I suggest you do so. He has shown that it is possible to get a mission to the actual planet (not the moons) relatively safely using the same kind of technology that we used to get to the moon in the 1960s. (Of course, with what we have now, it would be "easier" and safer", and those are in quotes merely because I am appreciative of the difficult and danger.)

    We (as humans, not just as specific country-people) need to recapture our pioneering spirit, and get someone to Mars. What we'll learn and accomplish will far outweigh the danger. Imagine if people had been too initimidated to round the horn of Africa, cross the Atlantic ocean, or go to moon! It's time we got that adventurous spirit back, and applied it planet-wide. If we pay attention to our smart people (ie, Zubrin), it's not something that need be far off in the future!

    1. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Slightly offtopic, but not too far considering the Russian's work in this area. The other day I was poking around to provide some references for the M2P2 technology when I ran across this little beauty. This electric thruster makes Ion engines look downright primitive. According to the various articles, this engine would provide a specific impluse as high as 11,000 (one of the most efficient designs ever created!), but with a relatively high thrust ratio. According to NASA's webpage, they have been testing a workbench model at powers of up to 30 Mw (!), and they believe that such engines could be used for both deep space missions to Mars, as well as providing more efficient second stage engines for ground launched vehicles.

      Apparently the Russians have done significant work on this area, and continues to perform experiements on behalf of JPL. It's quite possible that the development of this engine could have an even greater effect on space travel than the Ion engine did!

      The only downside to this engine is that it will be likely to require a nuclear reactor for power. This increases weight and adds the danger of a nuclear reactor. The upshot to this is that it is inherently safer than the Orion or NERVA engines, doesn't polute, and can go to Mars and back several times on the same tank of lithium! (Delta-V from LEO to Mars Orbit is about 3900 m/s. Do your own calcs on what that means for an engine with an ISP of 11,000 and a craft that is a mere 25% gas tank.)

      Once again, I'm amazed at the technology already in our posession, or close to being so. Now more than ever, I really feel that we're on the cusp of a true space age.

    2. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Funny
      a decent internet connection will keep the travelers from feeling too cut off

      Except for that pesky lightspeed delay.

      PING earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1) 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=14412874.9 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=14412872.3 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=14412876.2 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=14412874.3 ms
      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    3. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative
      P.S. Don't use Isp in the calculator I posted. It only gives the correct result for Exhaust Velocity. To correct this, switch to Isp, type the value in, then click on Exhaust Velocity. The number should be automatically converted for you. Then enter the figures for start mass and end mass to get the proper results. I emailed the author about this issue back in November, but it seems he hasn't had a chance to fix it.

      FWIW, here's the rocket formula:
      DeltaV = EV * ln(M0 / M1)
      Where EV = Exhaust Velocity, M0 is starting mass, and M1 is ending mass.

      Converting between Isp and Exhaust Velocity is as easy as:
      EV = Isp * 9.80665
      Isp = EV / 9.80665
    4. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would agree about the planet being better than being on the moon: less radiation, more mineral diverse, more to study, etc. I especially agree with the necessity of cheap launch technology. However, I have trouble putting too much faith in Zubrin, however, as the GP does. Zubrin acts as if all of the problems have been solved (or are almost solved), when they distinctly have not been.

      Lightweight low-power off-planet refining equipment has been "just on the horizon" for decades. So have moderately powerful off-planet nuclear reactors (some very weak ones have been used in Soviet satellites, and RTGs abound, of course). New spacecraft design almost usually runs overschedule and overbudget. Mars eats probes (the "galactic ghoul"), and most of the failures couldn't have been prevented by humans being present. We're just starting to learn the properties of martian dust (if you'll recall, before Spirit and Opportunity experienced natural dust cleaning, it was expected that their panels would have caked over with dust long ago), which poses numerous potential hazards. I have yet to see a satisfying solution from any reputable source for dealing with bremsstrahlung radiation from galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) in transit (I've seen a lot of papers that determine that we can shield safely if we conviently ignore Bremsstrahlung ;) If you have one that covers it, please send me a link). These are just a couple issues for starters; lets not even get into how off-the-wall Zubrin's prices for "long-term colonization" transit to Mars are...

      Yes, we'll make it to Mars. But we're hardly "almost there", as Zubrin, and especially his devout followers, portray.

      P.S. - Minor nitpicks:

      A) Mars has dust storms, not sandstorms. Sand is large particles, dust is fine particles. Dust doesn't usually erode and then leave, but instead electrostatically clings; it's a different set of engineering problems.

      B) Mars's pressure is close enough to being a vaccuum: 0.007 atmospheres on average. It's really only useful for aerobraking, concentration with pumps (for refining, pressurizing things when you're on the surface, etc), and a couple other uses; you'll still have to be in bulky full pressure suits, have fully pressurized dwellings, etc.

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    5. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by tbjw · · Score: 5, Funny

      PING earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1) 56(84) bytes of data.
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=14412874.9 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=14412872.3 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=14412876.2 ms
      64 bytes from earth.ssnet (3ffe:ffff:100:f101::1): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=14412874.3 ms


      I call shenanigans. Nobody uses IPv6

    6. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by VAXcat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When Earth takes the next dinosaur killer on the chin and everything more complicated than a paramecium gets destroyed, it would be nice to have some folks on Luna, Mars, maybe Ceres and Vesta as well, still alive to listen to that good old rock and roll music...that's why we need manned space flight, to colonize against the time that this greasy old blue marble won't support human life.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    7. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> time=14412874.3 ms

      So it'll be just like Battlenet?

    8. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by mr_pins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I also don't think that we'll ever colonise space/other planets/etc. Earth is where humans evolved, and we'll never find a place as well suited for human life.

      Human beings evolved in Africa.

      Siberia is not nearly as well suited to human life.

      It's so poorly suited to human life, in fact, that unitl relatively recently (definetly less than 20,000 years)
      noone lived there. It was only with the aid of new technology (needle and
      thread to make snug parkas, pants, and mittens)that human beings were able to
      colonize the area.

      For many generations now, Eskimos, etc. have been living on frozen, treeless, utterly
      inhospitable wastelands, erecting domed shelters made of local materials (ice), and walking
      around in the low-tech equivalent of space suits.

      The colonization of inhospitable environments by means of advanced technology has already begun
      and I see no reason to beleive that it won't or shouldn't continue.

    9. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, great, another time consuming argument with a Zubrin fanboy.

      You haven't read his book

      Outright wrong. Unlike you, I wouldn't be caught dead debating material I haven't read about.

      Really? Please site.

      The word is "cite". A "site" is a location. Here is your "cite": Goal #4 of the Apollo program was to "develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment.". Here's a Lunar Colony from 1969. Complete with a smelter. The concept of extracting resources from the moon continued with numerous R&D processes in the late 60s and early 70s; ton-quantities of regolith simulant were produced for the experiments. There was renewed interest in the 1980s with Reagan's call for lunar colonies by 2005.

      Mining under most proposals was to be done simply on regolith, using a three drum slasher. Cutler and Krag proposed and investigated a carbothermal oxygen production plant that processed ilmenite desposits. Another 1985 study investigating an entire proposed colony ("Selenopolis"), was to produce 500,000 tons of oxygen per year.

      And automatic mining equipment really isn't that complex.

      That's bloody hilarious. *Manned* mining equipment produced where weight is no object (here on earth) is quite complex. Have you ever seen the work that goes into setting up, for example, a tunnel boring system? Mining equipment costs millions of dollars per piece, and it's not for no good reason. Add to that the ridiculous weight, the oxygen-requiring temperature-sensitive engines, etc, and you're stuck paying brand new R&D costs without the benefit of bulk sales and having to use things like lithium-aluminum to cut mass.

      Also, Zubrin et al created a scale model of some of the oxygen mining gear. Worked great, needs to be tested.

      We don't even know specifically where water ice is, yet! (we have some ideas). By the way, have you seen how well electryolysis devices as such perform in hostile environments, even with extensive testing and two decades of development? The US has nothing like it qualified for long term missions - Elektron is the best thing out there (we have some heavy short-term devices).

      Loss of a critical component, and that's the end on Mars. No "repairs" being sent up on "the next flight", no massive backups to "tide you over" (this refers not only to oxygen, but to everything critical for life).

      Apples to oranges comparison. And 100% WRONG. I honestly can't think of ONE of the missions which it could be claimed with any certainty would NOT have been saved without a human around to check things out.

      That's because you've never read about the subject. I hate having to replace a textbook for people like you.

      Mars 1960A: Failed to reach earth orbit due to catastrophic vehicle launch failure. Nothing humans could have done.

      Mars 1960B: Same

      Mars 1962A: Broke into pieces after being launched; pieces remained in Earth orbit for a few days. The equivalent of having more dead humans.

      Mars 1: Communication lost in transit for unknown reasons. Depending on the cause, humans may or may not have been able to salvage it.

      Mars 1962B: Made it to earth orbit. Rocket fire for transfer orbit destroyed the craft. Humans would have perished.

      Mariner 3: Protective shield from earth launch failed to detach. The extra weight prevented it from reaching Mars. As most manned Mars missions don't allow for EVA due to the difficulty and extra mass, at the

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
    10. Re:With all this talk of going to Mars... by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correction: SpaceX, not SpaceDev. :) Big difference.

      Also, I forgot to mention one spacecraft that survived that probably would have killed any human cargo on it: Mars Global Surveyor. It had been designed to aerobrake at Mars with its solar panels. However, a joint partly gave way during the maneuver, and threatened to destroy the craft. So, they gave it a much gentler aerobraking approach that made it take many months longer than normal to circularize its orbit - the only realistic solution if they didn't want to tear the craft to shreds. Not a big deal for an unmanned spacecraft; it went on to produce a treasure trove of information over the years. However, for humans, a several month delay means, at best, a failed mission.

      --
      What a crazy random happenstance!
  3. I hope they pack well by aldeng · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they forget the shotgun they'll be screwed on like the fourth lebvel.

    1. Re:I hope they pack well by Valacosa · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Why would we need chainsaws on Mars?!"

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
  4. Marsian Moonbase? by agent+dero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some think it the perfect place for a Mars moonbase.

    Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, besides the "shock and awe" of getting to the moon, why isn't there a drive for the practicality of a base on our own moon?

    I think it's time that more of our space exploration gets practical, and not HR fodder. "Hey we're technologically superior! We got to mars!"

    How about "Hey, we're technologically superior! We have colonized space and use those colonies as jumping points for marsian missions!"

    Too hopeful? ;)

    --
    Error 407 - No creative sig found
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Hope/Plan by pete-classic · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think we have to hope for leather godesses, but plan for daemons.

    -Peter

  7. Mystery by ndansmith · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    Maybe God put it there.

  8. How are they going to pay for it by jockm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  9. Dusty surface by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Putting a lander on Phobos should be interesting, since the moonlet is covered by a meter-thick layer of dust. When I imagine a craft making a landing, I picture throwing a rock into a bowl of flour. On the plus side, maybe we'll make the first sizable, intentional man-made crater outside the Earth.

    I guess Phobos is better then Deimos... the latter is thought to have a layer of dust several hundred feet thick (or should that be "several dozen meters thick"?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  10. Actually... by gkwok · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, all of us are belong to base.

  11. Small moons harder to land on by JJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The two moons of Mars are not very big and although their gravitation is minimal, they don't present very big targets either. In order to land on one, you have to match the speed almost perfectly, then slightly chnage yours and then just as you get there match it again, hopefully you can then latch on.

    While that may not sound like much, for a probe with no help from Earth (Mars is on average 8 light, hence radio minutes away) this is a difficult task.

    --
    So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
  12. Better hurry up... by amstrad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Phobos' orbit is decaying and will likely crash into Mars or split into a ring within 50 million years

  13. International Space Agency: A Bad Idea by wintermute1974 · · Score: 4, Informative
    I completely disagree with you. Nationalism is the very reason that humanity managed to escape from gravity during the 20th century.

    Take for example, the race to the moon. Did the US go to the moon because the American population wanted to, just for the fun of it? No. The US and the USSR were locked in a cold war, each side vying for superiority on the global stage.

    Europe was seen as the battlefield for the Third World War, which seemed like it might begin at any moment during the 1950s and 1960s.

    If you were part of the leadership of a European nation during those years, you really would like to be aligned with the victor. Since the war would be fought with rockets, you probably watched the space race with great interest: After all, without an actual war, rockets into space provided a good proxy for actual military prowess.

    In this game, the US was doing quite badly:
    • The first artificial satellite in orbit around the Earth? The USSR did that first, in 1957.
    • Who sent the first living animal (a dog) into space? The USSR, of course, also in 1957.
    • The first man in space? The USSR did that first too, in 1961.
    • How about the first woman in space? The USSR beat the US there too, sending Valentina Vladimirovna Tereshkova skywards.
    • Which nation launched a man to orbit who then donned a spacesuit and drifted in the emptiness of space by himself? Yet again, the USSR did it first, in 1965.
    Time after time after time, the USSR was handing the US its ass on a plate.

    In the international community, the USSR was winning the propaganda battle against the US.

    Without the presence of the USSR, the US would have never sent people to the moon. We would have never seen the earth rise from behind the moon. We would have never seen people bouncing around the surface of the moon, kicking up dust.

    So, parent poster, please do not say that nationalism is bad for space. Without it, we would have never escaped the gravity well.