NASA To Team Up With Russia For Future Mars Flight

xp65 writes "NASA has invited Russia to carry out a joint manned flight to Mars, the head of NASA's Moscow office said on Tuesday. Russia is currently planning to send its own expedition to Mars some time in the future. Marc Bowman told an international aviation and space conference in Moscow that the Mars mission should take advantage of the achievements made by the International Space Station and use a multinational crew."

Comments

Understanding

[KraftDinner]

I've always thought that the only way for us as a race to become a unified nation is to simple explore space together. As soon as one nation decides to call Mars or whatever other celestial body their own, it will just be downhill from there.

Re:Understanding

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your underestimating the importance of competition.

Russia going to Mars alone could motivate a second space race. The end result is someone standing on Mars in 10 years instead of 20. NASA is more likely to get funding and motivation if they are competing.

Re:Understanding

[MrNaz]

If it ends up anything like the Apollo 11 mission, the cake *and* the launch will be a lie.

Re:Understanding

[0123456]

There's lots of things that a properly implemented world government could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet.

There are a lot of things that Santa Claus could do that would be fantastic and in the long run would benefit everyone on the planet too... they're about as likely to happen as a 'properly implemented world government'.

You seem to be under the impression that a 'world government' would be something other than a collection of psychopaths desperate to prey on the rest of us.

The odd thing is that I find the people who most promote 'world government' are also normally big promoters of 'diversity', and don't even see the blatant inconsistency between those position.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?

The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.

What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?

Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.

No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions.

Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).

So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea :) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another.

Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.

No, it's not a tough one at all. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? The Government? Then they can decide that anything is hate speech and outlaw it. There are a few people on the left in the US that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "hate" speech, whereas most sane people would regard their speech as political discourse. It may not be particularly intelligent political discourse but that doesn't mean it's "hate" speech.

If Government gets to decide what type of speech should be free then we don't have free speech. We have approved speech. You can spin it anyway you want but that's not free speech.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?

Re:Understanding

[johncadengo]

In a speech to the UN, Reagan once said:

"I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held, if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences we've had between our countries and we'd find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.

I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.

Re:Understanding

[Shakrai]

We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.

The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?

Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right?

Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively?

A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on /. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably. In the worst case scenario they are now equal. In the best case scenario they are tilted in your favor. I'm not a particularly religious person but I do agree with the sentiment behind this quote: God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example, though some sources indicate that the armed American population provided a deterrent to the Japanese in the early stages of WW2. I would go so far as to advocate that we emulate the Swiss/early American model. Disband most of the Army, while keeping specialist units (anti-aircraft brigades, artillery, intelligence, etc) and the Navy/Air Force around. In the event of a conflict it doesn't take that long to draft people into the service and teach them to fire a rifle. Such a system protects the country just fine while doing away with the standing army that the politicians are tempted to send on foreign adventures or use to oppress the population.

If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though.

In soviet russia...

[martas]

Mars gets its ass to YOU! And as a result Earth is obliterated. That's why Capitalism won.

it also defrays the expense of it all too...

[Dr_Ken]

The partnership thing that is. Emerging powers like the BRIC countries plus Japan have the $$$ and we have the technical know-how and experience. And there is no doubt the prestige factor at work here too.

It does make sense

[damburger]

The ISS as an international logistics project has been a resounding success. The European ATV, for example, can be launched and then dock with the ISS under the direction of 4 different control centres in different parts of the globe. The station itself is the most massive spacecraft ever assembled and has been constructed from components built by different agencies in different countries, and they work together pretty well. Most of the valid criticisms of the ISS are of the utility of having a LEO space station, not as the ability of the ISS to perform that function.

share toilets this time

[Anonymous Coward]

Will each nation have to provide their own toilets?

I approve

[oldhack]

Cynical NASA ploy to pull in the Russian babes. Can't blame them - it's a long-ass flight. Actually, good idea for short flights, too.

Russian Reply

[Thelasko]

"Mr. President, please. Is this why you called us here? We already gave up! You won! We are too busy trying to perfect universal indoor plumbing!"

Unshackle Russian Engineers from Russian System

[reporter]

Russia has outstanding scientists and engineers. Consider their achievements: Sputnik, the Mig 29, contributions to physics, etc.

However, the Russian system -- with its corruption and massive budget cuts (afte 1991) in government-funded research and development -- has hampered Russians scientists and engineers in their effort to produce breakthrough technology. NASA's collaboration with the Russian scientific community (and possible NASA funding for it) will help the Russians to achieve what they can not achieve in their own system.

If only President Dmitry Medvedev and Dictator Vladimir Putin created a Western society (with its intellectual freedom and clean government) in Russia and generously funded government research and development, then the Russians would likely dominate the winners of the Nobel Prizes in the sciences and of the Fields Medals in mathematics.

To hell with Mars, at least for now

[jollyreaper]

If we really want to do anything with space, we need to start doing things with economic significance. The moon trip should have been about pioneering the way towards moon habitats, moon industry. In that case it would have been money well-spent. All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use. Sure, there was some spin-off technology but we threw it all away.

Planting a flag on Mars would end up being a similar waste of time, not if we weren't going to follow it up with anything else.

If we were really serious about it, we'd look into moving heavy industry offworld. Prospect our nearby apollo objects, see about mining them. Put manufacturing in Earth orbit. The only thing that comes down to Earth would be finished products in nice, simple, recyclable dropshells.

We might want to look into solar power sats while we're at it.

If nothing else, at least space exploration and living offers us an engineering challenge of figuring out how to live minimally with minimal resources. Our problem in this day and age is that resources are too cheap and there's little incentive to save. If gas were a nickel a gallon, the only selling point for fuel efficiency would be not having to stop for gas as often. Gas costs more than that, of course, but it still doesn't cost enough for us to take conservation and fuel efficiency seriously. And we don't. It's just like the buffet. If you go to one that charges by the pound, you're careful about what you take. If you go to one that doesn't charge by the pound, you take as much as you want and are casually wasteful about what you leave on the plate. Simple human nature.

Re:To hell with Mars, at least for now

[Lord Ender]

I expect that you are underestimating the costs involved traveling through Earth's gravity well. I've heard that if a rock of solid gold were orbiting Earth, it would not be economically viable to de-orbit it. Unless we discover something out there that is fantastically valuable, "industry" will not be the motivating factor for space travel.

Having self-sufficient off-world biospheres? That's a worthwhile endeavor simply because survival of the species is important; it's just not valuable to private industry (oh and suck it, libertarians).

Where will the parts come from?

[jameskojiro]

Strung out Russian Cosmonaut: American Parts, Russian Parts.... All Made in Taiwan.....

If you want to stay in space, ask the Russians

[MosesJones]

While the Russian(USSR) Space programme was certainly less sophisticated than the US one its also certainly true that the engineering efficiency of the Russian programme was based around long-life. This is why its a Soyuz capsule that works as the escape pod on the ISS and why the Russians have held the records around how long people stay in space.

Combining the electronic expertise of the US with the engineering expertise of the Russians sounds like an excellent thing to do. It also means that the US can learn from people who have experience of keeping individuals healthy in space for over a year which is what you will need to get to Mars and back.

The Best Space programme to Mars

Designed by Apple
Engineered by the Russians
Electronics by the Americans
Rockets by the Germans
Food by the French

The Worst Space programme to Mars

Designed by the US Senate
Engineered by Chrysler
Electronics by Alfa Romeo
Rockets by North Korea
Food by McDonalds

I hope this happens in my lifetime.

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Growing up in the 20th century the mission to mars was always just around the corner when presented in science books and media in general. At some point I got used to hearing the so-called predicted dates for when this could happen being pushed back yet another decade after yet another decade. The cold war race to the moon was one thing. But I think the only way we will ever conceivably branch out into space beyond the moon (and to mars) is for nations to work together sharing resources and knowledge. Nice to see these steps being taken in the right direction.

Sparse details

[FleaPlus]

Before everybody gets all crazy and excited about this, there doesn't seem to be any details about Marc Bowman's comments anywhere (not even NASA's site) except for a 5-sentence blurb from RIA Novosti (the Russian state-owned news agency). There was a cool article in IEEE Spectrum recently about Russia's Mars dreams, but they were along the lines of "here's some neat ideas, we need money."

My suspicion is that Marc Bowman said something generic like "it would be nice for Russia and NASA to work together more in the future on things like Mars missions," and RIA Novosti just decided to run with it.

success, but not efficient

[Gary W. Longsine]

With so many modules built, independently, in so many countries, spare parts from cancelled Russian and stalled American programs re-purposed, multiple, incompatible electrical systems, and whatnot, it's pretty easy to see that the ISS mode of international cooperation was not particularly efficient. Billions of dollars could have been saved if it had been coordinated in a smarter way. ISS was a success by some measures, but probably shouldn't be used as a model to be copied.

Monopolies are bad

[istartedi]

We've already seen what Globalization does when "the" economy has issues. A housing crisis in the USA doesn't cause issues in China without globalization.

The Free Trade advocates always sold the advantages, which were readily calculable; but ignored the disadvantages which are harder to measure until you actually experience them.

Only now are people beginning to realize something that should have been apparent right from the start: one single, massive economic system is inherently bad. It's like a monopoly. There's no backup.

It's even worse if you take this philosophy and duplicate it outside the financial realm. We already see this with the "war on drugs". Many countries that would like to legalize may not do so, not because of internal resistance; but because they've signed a UN convention.

Now take that, and apply it to ALL the laws. Yuck.

Most people don't like war, but if the alternative is a "one size fits all" solution, there will be times when it doesn't fit, and war becomes the only alternative. They just won't be wars between nation-states anymore. They'll all be civil wars, which are oftentimes far worse.

Also, what about refugees? Tell me, where do the boat people go when everywhere is Cuba?

Ah those crazy Russians!

[DarthVain]

Just don't have any women on board, particularly Canadian women, otherwise the the Russians will kill each other trying to kiss her.

Mars Epic Fail (Didn't last even one month):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6955149/page/3/

Mars Epic Win:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/15/after-three-months-in-a-tin-can-six-men-end-simulated-mars-mission/