Slashdot Mirror
Russia Aims Towards Mars
Iddo Genuth writes "Russia's Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) has announced its intentions to build a low-orbit space station which, according to the agency, will support future exploration of the moon and Mars. There's also a suggestion to extend the operational lifespan of the International Space Station by five more years, resetting its retirement date to 2020. The project proposal is already on its way for review by the Russian government. Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars."
In post-soviet Russia, you build space station.
Now that State Communism got kicked out, 2 decades later, things are finally starting to change back to normal
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The Reds are going to the Red Planet!
Anybody want my mod points?
Moving the ISS is not such a crazy idea at all, and it's been proposed already by some smart people as a way to increase moon mission payoffs and reduce mission risks. A series of orbit boosts could eventually lead to a transfer orbit and lunar orbital insertion. Once in lunar orbit it would be at reduced risk of damage from orbital trash. Yes, sending up resupply and crew swapouts would be more difficult, but remember we would already be doing that for manned lunar operations so it's really not that much of a stretch.
Moving it to mars... Now that's a bit of a stretch but it might be possible with a propulsion efficiency breakthrough that could be powered by existing solar arrays or a bolt-on reactor. Still though, I think the idea of using it to support lunar operations might be an interesting idea especially as an alternative to letting it die after such a slow and expensive build-up with gross under-use as a science platform since it's been manned due to problems with the shuttle program.
The big question is: Once the shuttle is out of the picture, why keep the ISS where it is? Why not just put it wherever it is the most useful?
If they turn the ISS into a space transport, they can reuse the engines when the space transport shuttle program is retired.
I suppose *some* people would be upset if a Russian booster rocket took the ISS out of orbit without telling anyone, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it ludicrous. If the U.S. doesn't pay Russia to boost the ISS during the shuttle's downtime, Russia may have no choice but to pull a repo job on it.
In space, no one can hear you... nevermind.
You can't send a takedown notice to an already printed newspaper.
Mars, ever eager to fight, aims right the fuck back.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Russia is ALWAYS announcing things like this - Klipr, manned Mars missions, etc. I've lost track of how many times they've "announced" they're going to Mars, or some other huge project.
The reason why this keeps happening is because in part we in the west are misunderstanding the way the Russian space program works.
They don't announce plans in the way for example NASA would. In Russia, they continually plan these things, then float out the ideas to see if they can get support and funding - and in the last 20 years or so, international investment.
If they DON'T get funders to sign on, it goes nowhere, and in a year or so they trot out another proposal.
This is NOT an announcement of a plan, it's a marketing pitch. They're saying "we could do this, anyone out there wanna pay for it?"
This space available.
In soviet space, you can hear no one screaming...
(!)
but sometimes they hit Georgia.
English please
It's just as well though. Think of how disappointing it would be if they did launch something all that way only that have it collide with the polar orbiter upon arrival...
It's quite ironic that it looks like the only thing that will save US manned spaceflight & planetary exploration from becoming a sacrificial lamb on the altar of pork & payoffs by short-sighted, corrupt US politicians may well be a re-emerging, hostile, and aggressive Russia.
It looks like it may be more effective for US citizens who are in favor of NOT letting our manned spaceflight capabilities die from neglect to, rather than contributing money to any US politicians or organizations, donate money to the Russian spaceflight program instead.
It seems that US politicians have so abandoned any pretense of doing the will of the people, of upholding & defending the US Constitution, and acting in the countries' best interests, that we may in future find it much more effective to donate money to our various enemies and rivals like Russia, Al Queda, and Ahmadinejad to preserve our freedom and prevent our politicians from doing things like de-funding NASA and the US military to fund their pork-filled, quid-pro-quo/payoff-laden, "bridge to nowhere" projects and social-engineering experiments designed to increase their voter-base.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Basically, RSA is already not well funded. It is not likely that they will get funding for more when Russia is losing money and their economy is crashing HARD.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Thats pretty much the same for space programs in the west.
A study was recently published showing that the amount of money spent in the last twenty years on studies of how to get to the moon cheaper would have gotten us to the moon twenty years ago using the most expensive plan then proposed.
Russia is suppose to boost it AND pay for it. But, America DOES have options. In particular, we have the ability to use a simple 5 mile cable to pull it up electrically. Of course, that would mean taking power away from the Russian side. Likewise, I suspect that if Russia were to not uphold that end, we would just pay EU to launch a few more of their ATVs which can last at least 6 months and have plenty of boost.
Finally, I suspect that L-Mart, Boeing, Orbital and SpaceX can come up with quick ability to do this with a several billion contract.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"Podmates! A new threat from the wretched third planet has presented itself!" roared K'breel, Glorious Elder Speaker of the High Council, the his gelatinous tendrils quivering with excitement. "The detestable ape-people of the Northwestern Continent, having failed pitifully in their invasion of our homeworld with their pathetic wheeled war vehicles, have now attempted to enslave the population of an old adversary to construct their monstrous interplanetary weapons of destruction. Fortunately for our cause, due to the design faults of their primitive neurological systems, and in no small part the assistance of our hidden operatives, their economies have collapsed as a result of their insatiable lust for accumulating worthless structures of planetary rock and decayed photosynthetic matter! They have turned against one another in their uncomprehending rage, bringing the hour of our ultimate victory within sight!"
When one journalist timidly asked of K'breel to confirm the rumors that a new Great Speaker had arisen among the citizens of the Northwestern Continent, who had been prophisized to lead the ape-people to final victory in the interminable conflict, K'breel ordered his gelsacs to be pierced on the spot.
Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars.
It does sound like the submitter has some better use of ISS in mind. He should share it with the rest of the world, especially considering that the warranty on ISS expires 5 years from now, and no new scientific discoveries were reported so far. Most of the ISS's benefits are in the sphere of organizing such a project and building a few unique, new robotic arms, and gaining a better understanding how things break and how to fix them up there (mostly by replacing, which I could have told anyone even before ISS launched :-)
It was designed to do science in low orbit. It has shields, more Solar Cells, etc. It is far cheaper to send Bigelows to these various places, since it is much lighter. In addition, it would have higher efficiency solar cells, limited shielding (via water as well as more shields around quarters. In the end, it is far better to keep the ISS right where it is, keep testing our parts there as well as doing science, and then push new tech to Moon/Mars based on the lessons from ISS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Russia decided to nuke mars.
I'm going to blindly assume this is the point of the article and see no need to actually read it.
Go Russia!
You can't take the sky from me.
the ISS needs the earths magnetic field to protect it from solar radiation... the 2 most reliable defenses against it are 1.. about 6 feet of lead to shield from it or 2. create a magnetic field large enough to protect the ISS once it out of earths magnetic field, i am not sure if we have this technology yet and if we did... it would be HUGE so not very likely to fit on the ISS anyway. Another problem assuming the first is fixed.. is fuel... rockets would be a waste of money... would be better off with a newer technology(like deep space one had, ion propulsion) might take a bit to get up to speed but if you are only going to stick it in an orbit around the moon it wouldnt take much with a slingshot from earth. its only about 200k miles anyway.(also dont forget how much fuel you would need for each type of propulsion system... rocket fuel isn't very efficient for long distances and it would take up a LARGE LARGE LARGE amount of space and add weight that you just cant have for this type of thing) It would be more effective to build a spacecraft thats actually designed for interplanetary travel and use the ISS as a "hub" for the spacecraft or something... there are plenty of uses for the ISS beyond 2020, but having it be a manned interplanetary spacecraft just doesn't seem like a viable one.
Nerd.
Well, teh amount of science done on the ISS so far really is minimal and little of it is something that couldn't have been done without having a space station at all (namely longterm exposure to null gravity and such) - on shuttle missions and unmanned craft. In this respect a followup mission for the contraption would make a lot of sense.
I am surprised to hear that the ISS would be taken out in 2020, which would give it only half of operational lifetime completed, after the first half is made of construction, but the use period of all previous space stations has been extended, so I think it's the norm really and will most likely happen with the ISS as well, but we shall see how it'll play out...
Big deal, just get it to Mars slowly without having a crew onboard it in the meantime.
After the little fiasco this last week, they should design their station with lots of little paddles wheels attached to small generators. That way when the debris clouds from their crashing satellites cause their platform to be continuously pelted by fast moving debris, they can use it to generate power...
The Yugo of space stations was previously the Mir, it worked for decades without any serious accident. Tell me again what happened to the cadalacc of space vehilces? Twice?
Near-accidents and dealt with malfunctions are the order of the day for all high tech. It don't mean shit. The only thing that counts is if they become true accidents resulting from malfunctions that aren't dealt with.
You are making the same mistake the americans made with the space shuttle. You want things to look nice rather then just work well enough. The ISS is good enough. Sure, with enough will you could get something better but who is going to pay for that? The US goverment? That would be the same US goverment that totally screwed up the shuttle and then cut the program down to such an extent that a test model became the one single vehicle to be used in roles it was never designed for.
"Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle, which would serve as the 'ultimate mother ship' in manned planetary missions to the moon or even Mars."
this should have always been the main goal for a project like ISS (INTERNATIONAL space station).
even if it would not have been used (no funding)
to make the acctual trip to moon or mars, it
would have been able to do anything the ISS is
doing currently.
there have been many many orbiting outposts (space
stations) so far.
the next step should definitely be a
interplanetary SPACESHIP. a ferry. a mothership.
grand idea! go for it! something that can make
the trip to moon, mars, Lagrange points multiple
times.
just from an economic perspective, a regular
approach to interplanetary travel ala apollo,
throws away / discards 96% of the mass that is
heaved into orbit.
if there were a permanent structure in orbit, a framwork of some sort, one would only need to
send up a engine / fuel and the passengers/astro-cosmonauts. if the engine were re-usable , then just fuel and passengers.
so fellow slashdoters, a a sure-tell sign, that
a mission to mars will just be a pride thing ("plant the flag already fred and let's go home")
will be the fact that it will be a apollo style
mission, with 98% of the engineered and launched
mass discarded.
Neat... it will become a movable feast for our Martian overlords and space aliens, then?
the movie made in orbit
There's an AC buried somewhere above who makes this point too: an UNMANNED transfer. Send the ISS slow as you like, minimising fuel consumption and mechanical stress on the structure, to its future destination, then later, think about putting people on it. Even if it turns out that the station has become uninhabitable, at least now you have several tons of spare parts up out of the gravity well, and much faster to be retrieved should future astronauts need it.
sustainable living
"Get your ass to Mars"
As any new project, first version/beta has problems, unknown faults and work in progress solutions. Its doing well. Now I also bet if you give china the plans, they could manufacture 10 of the things, each component in a different city, in one year flat. Who needs 2 billion mp3 players. Make 10 ISS clones.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Not trying to be insulting, but don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. For a tiny fraction of the treasure wasted in the "stimulus" package just passed (and assuming that only a fraction of the total package is "waste"), we could have *both* types of programs fully-funded and running in parallel
There is no "fully funded" in unmanned space exploration. There are hundreds of targets we should be exploring and that we are technologically ready to explore, and we should be working our first interstellar probe. Every dollar that we spend on sending people into space right now is holding the space program back. Yes, it is even holding back manned space exploration, because any serious manned exploration will need the data, propulsion technologies, and robotic technologies that would be developed as part of unmanned space exploration.
The current manned space program is a colossal waste of money. We'd do well to go entirely unmanned for a few decades and then restart from scratch. If all the "skills and experienced personnel" from the programs that exist today are gone by then, that's not necessarily a bad thing; those people tend to think in old, expensive ways.
Why send men to where there is no air? Something like this will do the job better: http://www.draganfly.com/
Just as ships that cross the ocean often have boats that they use to get to shore, the thought of a "mother ship" to circle the earth, then take a trip around the moon, then drop off/pick up landers at the moon, the take a trip to Mars, then drop off/pick up landers at Mars, isn't that bad of idea. The idea that you need to take off from Earth, fly across space, land on Mars, and return is insane in terms of complexity. A mother ship gives us something that we can do in baby steps.
It's time to turn the ISS into a mother ship. Let's make something more robust to circle earth for a while and expand from there. I'm not talking about the ISS in it's current form. But, let's recycle. Send up some stuff. Use some stuff from the ISS. It's already there. Why waste the fuel putting new stuff up there if we can reuse what's already there. As a society (earthlings in general), we've been smelting metal for a long time. We should be able to figure out how to do a little manufacturing in space. Maybe add a little mechatronics to keep the process safer? Let's start recycling some of that space junk.
This is not an either/or problem. There's no reason other than political posturing and pork-barrel spending why both manned and unmanned programs couldn't be seriously pursued.
Yes, there is: every dollar we spend on manned space exploration is more effectively spent on unmanned exploration right now; the resulting scientific and engineering insights will accelerate both unmanned and manned space exploration.
If you're that much of a monster that you're ok with sentencing a whole new crop of poor schmoes to repeat what we've already achieved
You're the monster, because you want to continue to send astronauts into space using flaky, dangerous 1960's technology, instead of creating the space technologies that make manned space exploration safe and efficient.
I'm sorry, but your type of view and attitude is the type of short-sighted Luddite-thinking that would still have people riding horses and reading by candle light.
You're the Luddite here: you're so eager to realize your Star Trek fantasies and so unwilling to look at space travel rationally that you end up holding space exploration back.
It's people like you that condemned us to a failed space shuttle program and "space stations" and that have held back space exploration by decades. If it weren't for your irrational insistence on constantly putting men into tin cans, we probably would have orbiting space habitats and manned interplanetary travel right now.
... you do the flight unmanned, don't mind several decades in transit and are able to mothball the station in a way that you can reliably unfreeze and reactivate it after many years in space. That way, you might be able to use low thrust, low energy, solar or nuclear powered high specific impulse ion or plasma drives to haul the station there.
A pioneer mission can then try to reactivate the station and if successful, you already have habitat, life support and scientific equipment in place for subsequent missions. This would be especially useful if fuel production in situ is planned (as with the "Mars Direct" mission plans) so the station can be at least partly resupplied there.
ignatius
Wow, you know you are having a bad Russian winter, when people want to escape to outer space...
"Some Russian sources also reportedly proposed the (rather ludicrous) idea of converting the ISS into some kind of an interplanetary transport vehicle"
Why is that a ludicrous idea? All that stuff is in space already and is designed for life support. Getting the stuff into orbit in the first place is one of the most expensive things in space travel.
But yeah, I'm sure you know alot better than russian rocket scientists.
The idea of making the ISS a spaceship, is as reasonable as adapting a house for transportation.
Low orbiting space station would be also useful for watching over the american military forces. I think it's the main reason. Cold war never ends! And as for me cold war is good for technical progress
Moon ISS
even works for Mars ISS
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
I said this along time ago, keep stuff made for space in space, so that we can use their metal and pieces to put together more stations in the future, like all those orbiting sats, could they not be used for parts, they are already up there, have the shuttle scoop up all of them and bring thenm to the space station, and use their thrusters and cameras and satcoms etc....for the station, if they are broken, they can be fixed, along with someone who can stay longer up there to head up the
inventory.
This is not new, as I mentioned about the shuttle being used in this way too, we could send it up and then bring the 'nauts down with the next shuttle, leaving an extra traveling vehicle up there.
If we start thinking this way, not only will we be richer in space, but will not have to deal with thes colliding satellites... http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/15/2241211
i emancipate myself from the grammar nazizm you people hold so dearly. im not english, american or australian. that's the way i speak, take it, or leave it.
Read radical news here
Why not push the ISS out to lunar orbit? If we retire it in 2020 it will only be 30 years old max, so why not give it a fresh coat of space paint and use it as a rescue station for interplanetary missions. I am sure there are better things to do with it than let it fall back to earth and burn up.