| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Russia to send manned mission to Mars in 2014 |
| 2004-01-15 |
| As NASA’s unmanned Spirit rover, stationed on Mars, prepares to explore the planet, Russia is now planning to send a manned mission to the Red planet in 2014 consisting of up to six cosmonauts. "Red" planet, huh? OK, commie, the race is on! "Technically the first human flight to Mars would be possible in 2014," a designer of Russian Space Corporation "Energiya", Leonid Gorshkov was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS. "Energiya" corporation has already developed the project of Mars shuttle for to-and-fro journey of cosmonauts to the Red planet. NASA’s unmanned Spirit rover is already stationed on Mars and had sent pictures of the planet’s terrain last week. The rover is expected to separate from its lander and step out anytime to explore the planet. It rolled off the lander this morning. Hey, Europe, how’s your probe doing? The Russian plans come into open as US President George W Bush is all set to announce an ambitious project to establish a training base on moon that can serve as a launch pad for farther-reaching missions to Mars and elsewhere. .Also makes a excellent location for our Death Ray Unlike the US project costing $150 billion, Russia would need only $15 billion, ten times less the American project, Gorshkov underscored. "We saved money by throwing out all that useless backup gear and safety equipment. The 70-tonne Martian ship being developed by "Energiya" would resemble the "Zvezda" module of International Space Station and would be assembled on the Earth’s orbit from the parts lifted by Russia’s "Proton" rockets. The proposed Russian interplanetary space ship will be equipped with Electro-jets for propulsion with the help of solar energy - successfully tested on "Mir" orbital station. The manned mission to Mars would last for one-and-half to two years and during the maiden flight the cosmonauts will work only on the Martian orbit, while an automatic module will land on the Red Planet’s surface. After the accomplishment of the mission the Mars ship will remain in space on the Earth’s orbit for the future missions and in the meantime could be used as orbital I love a good race, let’s go! |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #42 Also makes a excellent location for our Death Ray Hey, you forgot the mind control lasers.. we MUST have those, if only to keep the Greens pruned back and the Loony Left properly subdued! Hehehehe. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2004-1-15 9:37:20 PM |
| #41 Oh and yes I do know the article says 70 tons (and Energia can lift 100-120 tons to LEO orbit) but I suspect it will need additional boosters for the Mars trajectory. |
| Posted by: Val 2004-1-15 8:04:27 PM |
| #40 I think everyone here is forgetting one thing. SIZE. Whats the size of these vehicles? Energia and Titan IV class heavy lift vehicles can put a 45-50 ton vehicle on a Mars trajectory, but you can be pretty certain it'll be arriving there in 8-10 months time. Is 45-50 tons enough? How about 100 tons in vehicles and supplies? Will that be enough for 6-10 person crew to Mars? In my opinion we need bigger vehicles than even that. We should seriously consider nuclear powered platforms for the moon to mars side of the mission. Until we uncork that bottle this is just going to be even more complicated than it really has to be. |
| Posted by: Val 2004-1-15 8:03:06 PM |
| #39 Isn't Mars direct essential the same deal as Lunar Orbit Ron.? A cheap thrill with no future? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 6:03:25 PM |
| #38 But, how will you bring him back? That's the nut cutter. Let me go with enough stuff, dawgs, women, brewing equipment, I won't need to come back. Let's colonize the place. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 6:01:22 PM |
| #37 The Mars-direct is a cheaper way but more expensive in the long term and certainly not adequte for building a permanent presence. The way I outlined (and have heard from Northrup and Lockheed folks I know) would take longer, cost more, but would guarantee success and long term ability to research Mars. Bascially most of the earth-side launches would go up on Energia rockets - the Russians build damned good ones (Lockeed in Waterton Canyon Facility in Colorado uses some Energia engines on their rockets even). Its the only thing that could lift stuff in one piece to be mated into a full spacecraft. Manned launches were supposed to have gone by way of the "spaceplane" concept- easier, cheaper and quicker for humans to go up seperate from cargo. (One of the reasons the shuttle is so complex is that it has to bear cargo stresses designed for delivery of spy satellites). Assembly in earth orbit, and go for trans-mars from there. I guess there is a difference in view - mars-direct just wants to get there and back. The plan I heard (and prefer) is to get there and stay. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 5:53:00 PM |
| #36 OldSpook, there is a better plan called Mars Direct, developed by Robert Zubin of the Mars Society. Basically you have two launches. The first is unmanned, it sends the return vehicle to Mars. the return vehicle creates its own fuel while there by combining Hydrogen with the Carbon Dioxide in the Martian atmosphere. When it has a whole load of fuel the second one is launched. This is a one way trip with the passengers and supplies. It lands near the return vehicle. Zubrin suggest 20 million for the entire package. NASA upped that to 50 million by changing things slightly so that the first launch isn't expected to return to Earth but it does create the fuel, and the second launch doesn't land on Mars, it parks in Mars orbit and heads to the surface in a LEM type vehicle. They call it Mars Semi-Direct and I expect that's the plan NASA will be working with. Of course the whole thing works best if you have a series of launches in an ongoing assault on Mars. Each series if 50 million but there has to be some reusable equipment so the costs should drop as time goes by. For example if the main ship stays in Earth orbit when it returns it might be reusuable saving a bundle. This kind of multi phase mission would work really well as an international venture. The Europeans (or Russians or Japanese, or whoemever) could pay for and build (or buy American equipment) and launch there own people in one of the followup missions without holding up or interfering with the American missions. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-15 5:40:18 PM |
| #35 Has Scrappelface changed format? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-1-15 5:21:53 PM |
| #34 There's already been planning on this for a while. Simply put, you don't land him unitl you have his ticket home already in place. First, do what the russians describe: establish an orbiting station for transfer and supplies. Second, you park the return vehicle there, fully supplied. Third, survey for a proper "permanent" landing site by way of manned orbital missions. This also has the benefit or working out the kinks in the "long haul" aspects - getting people there and back. Remember - Apollo 9 flew around the moon and didn't land, well before 11 made the landing, so there is precedent. Fourth, you start accumulating the needed supplies and equipment in orbit. The you start the landing phases. The initial landings are all unmanned. First are the "habitat" landings, containing the initial habitat modules (living quarters, food and air generation, medical facility, scientific lab, air locks, generators, etc), 2 "truck" of some sort for hauling (because the sites will be neccesairly a mile or two apart - and 2 beacuse you need redundancy), consumable supplies, etc. You need to supply for the people to be on the surface for a year+ because resupply takes so long from earth. Next set of landings are the return-to-orbit vehicle, and the liftoof boosters it needs to do so (each in its own landing, like each being a solid rocket booster of some sort), and you also land a refuel facility if such a thing is possible and needed for the return vehicle (i.e. make your own fuels from the surface in limited quantities, like liquid oxygen, hydrogen). Once all thats there, you land the crew in a module that carries the most important stuff with it (the central "hub" for a base built out the descent vehicle once it lands, so heavy stuff like central airlocks, rad shielded areas, heavy equipment, etc), whose first job is to assemble the habitiat, and set up the supplies. Then they set up the return boosters and vehicle. After that they do what Man has done since he first wandered out of the treees/caves: explore and try to figure out what it is we have found. WHen done,you have another re-orbit vehicle arrive with boosters, etc, which is assembled by the current crew prior to their departure. When this is done, the next ground crew comes down, relieves the current crew, then conducts their launch. Once in mars orbit again, they transition the orbital space station, and get in the return vehicle for earth after fasenting everything down for the next crew. Its pretty dmaned complicated compared to going to th moon becasue we have to not only bring everything with us, we also have to deal with higher gravity, an atmosphere (no LEM looking things), and most importantly, it takes the better part of a year to get there and to get back, so the time scale is about 3 years per mission instead of a week or so. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 4:52:57 PM |
| #33 Landing a man on mars sounds achievable. But, how will you bring him back? How will he take off from the martian surface (the bottom of a planetary sized gravity well) unless we are planning on taking one hella lot of fuel down with us (or mine/refine it there). I think it is a good idea if it can be done. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-1-15 4:04:28 PM |
| #32 Right On OS... Let Energia be a contractor... they know what they know.... Only folks on the planet who know who to set up an assembly line for boosters. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 3:03:35 PM |
| #31 Be sure to see Lileks blog today. Excellent, as almost always. And Paul Harvey (Good-daayyy!) put down the nay-sayers, giving a list of what space exploration has meant to us in terms of medical, scientific and technological breakthroughs (no, he didn't include Tang). |
| Posted by: OldeForce 2004-1-15 3:02:14 PM |
| #30 One grain of truth not to be overlooked They do have the only true "heavy lift" rockets left in the world - bascially, if you need to send something big up there, either you piggyback it on the shuttle, or let the Russians put it in orbit. And if you want it to go higher than the ISS orbit, right now, the Russians are the only guys who have the big rockets to do that. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 2:37:37 PM |
| #29 lol or perhaps it'll end up more like the theatre incident,ivan could be gassed by his own team. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-15 2:28:27 PM |
| #28 Wow--this will be just like the Kursk tragedy all over again, only this time not even the Norwegians and Brits will be able to recover the bodies for Vlad. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-1-15 2:17:03 PM |
| #27 "the cosmonauts will work only on the Martian orbit, while an automatic module will land on the Red Planet’s surface" What's the point? Our "automatic module" (rover) is already doing this in 2004. How many flags have the Reds planted on the moon? They don't even make a marketable car, so this is one budget charter flight I wouldn't sign up for. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-1-15 1:51:24 PM |
| #26 In other words, expect Vlady to be hitting us up for $15 billion in the first half of '04. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-1-15 1:45:55 PM |
| #25 Do not be fooled for a second. Energia's been making claims like this for years. I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if Putin is involved in the claims. My guess is Energia is trying to position themselves to piggy back the US venture in hopes of continuing the relationship after the ISS is finished. My guess is they are barking up the wrong tree. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-15 1:44:04 PM |
| #24 Also makes a excellent location for our Death Ray I think one of Jupiter's moons works better. If I recall correctly, there's one of them with a great big crater where the planet-buster would be built. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-15 1:39:47 PM |
| #23 yeah this has got me real excited,its brilliant news (i know that sounds weird) Let the race begin.Bush better not bottle out on this one and let the commie's win. This could be cool to watch this whole new space race unfold over the years to come like a proper reality t.v show.Sounds mad but i'm thinking this could really spur on the commercialisation of space and we all know what that could hold for future generations. Bush was seriously cool when he announced going to the moon then mars but now there's competition its so much more of an inncentive to really do it.I just hope us Brits might have a couple of seats spare for them on the American ride to Mars...Let the Race Begin. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-15 1:21:26 PM |
| #22 Yes! A Race! Maybe the Chinee want to get in on the action. 2014 25-1 against anybody getting there (and back) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 1:19:36 PM |
| #21 Also makes a excellent location for our Death Ray Hey, you forgot the mind control lasers.. we MUST have those, if only to keep the Greens pruned back and the Loony Left properly subdued! Hehehehe. Ed. |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2004-1-15 9:37:20 PM |
| #20 Oh and yes I do know the article says 70 tons (and Energia can lift 100-120 tons to LEO orbit) but I suspect it will need additional boosters for the Mars trajectory. |
| Posted by: Val 2004-1-15 8:04:27 PM |
| #19 I think everyone here is forgetting one thing. SIZE. Whats the size of these vehicles? Energia and Titan IV class heavy lift vehicles can put a 45-50 ton vehicle on a Mars trajectory, but you can be pretty certain it'll be arriving there in 8-10 months time. Is 45-50 tons enough? How about 100 tons in vehicles and supplies? Will that be enough for 6-10 person crew to Mars? In my opinion we need bigger vehicles than even that. We should seriously consider nuclear powered platforms for the moon to mars side of the mission. Until we uncork that bottle this is just going to be even more complicated than it really has to be. |
| Posted by: Val 2004-1-15 8:03:06 PM |
| #18 Isn't Mars direct essential the same deal as Lunar Orbit Ron.? A cheap thrill with no future? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 6:03:25 PM |
| #17 But, how will you bring him back? That's the nut cutter. Let me go with enough stuff, dawgs, women, brewing equipment, I won't need to come back. Let's colonize the place. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 6:01:22 PM |
| #16 The Mars-direct is a cheaper way but more expensive in the long term and certainly not adequte for building a permanent presence. The way I outlined (and have heard from Northrup and Lockheed folks I know) would take longer, cost more, but would guarantee success and long term ability to research Mars. Bascially most of the earth-side launches would go up on Energia rockets - the Russians build damned good ones (Lockeed in Waterton Canyon Facility in Colorado uses some Energia engines on their rockets even). Its the only thing that could lift stuff in one piece to be mated into a full spacecraft. Manned launches were supposed to have gone by way of the "spaceplane" concept- easier, cheaper and quicker for humans to go up seperate from cargo. (One of the reasons the shuttle is so complex is that it has to bear cargo stresses designed for delivery of spy satellites). Assembly in earth orbit, and go for trans-mars from there. I guess there is a difference in view - mars-direct just wants to get there and back. The plan I heard (and prefer) is to get there and stay. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 5:53:00 PM |
| #15 OldSpook, there is a better plan called Mars Direct, developed by Robert Zubin of the Mars Society. Basically you have two launches. The first is unmanned, it sends the return vehicle to Mars. the return vehicle creates its own fuel while there by combining Hydrogen with the Carbon Dioxide in the Martian atmosphere. When it has a whole load of fuel the second one is launched. This is a one way trip with the passengers and supplies. It lands near the return vehicle. Zubrin suggest 20 million for the entire package. NASA upped that to 50 million by changing things slightly so that the first launch isn't expected to return to Earth but it does create the fuel, and the second launch doesn't land on Mars, it parks in Mars orbit and heads to the surface in a LEM type vehicle. They call it Mars Semi-Direct and I expect that's the plan NASA will be working with. Of course the whole thing works best if you have a series of launches in an ongoing assault on Mars. Each series if 50 million but there has to be some reusable equipment so the costs should drop as time goes by. For example if the main ship stays in Earth orbit when it returns it might be reusuable saving a bundle. This kind of multi phase mission would work really well as an international venture. The Europeans (or Russians or Japanese, or whoemever) could pay for and build (or buy American equipment) and launch there own people in one of the followup missions without holding up or interfering with the American missions. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-15 5:40:18 PM |
| #14 Has Scrappelface changed format? |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-1-15 5:21:53 PM |
| #13 There's already been planning on this for a while. Simply put, you don't land him unitl you have his ticket home already in place. First, do what the russians describe: establish an orbiting station for transfer and supplies. Second, you park the return vehicle there, fully supplied. Third, survey for a proper "permanent" landing site by way of manned orbital missions. This also has the benefit or working out the kinks in the "long haul" aspects - getting people there and back. Remember - Apollo 9 flew around the moon and didn't land, well before 11 made the landing, so there is precedent. Fourth, you start accumulating the needed supplies and equipment in orbit. The you start the landing phases. The initial landings are all unmanned. First are the "habitat" landings, containing the initial habitat modules (living quarters, food and air generation, medical facility, scientific lab, air locks, generators, etc), 2 "truck" of some sort for hauling (because the sites will be neccesairly a mile or two apart - and 2 beacuse you need redundancy), consumable supplies, etc. You need to supply for the people to be on the surface for a year+ because resupply takes so long from earth. Next set of landings are the return-to-orbit vehicle, and the liftoof boosters it needs to do so (each in its own landing, like each being a solid rocket booster of some sort), and you also land a refuel facility if such a thing is possible and needed for the return vehicle (i.e. make your own fuels from the surface in limited quantities, like liquid oxygen, hydrogen). Once all thats there, you land the crew in a module that carries the most important stuff with it (the central "hub" for a base built out the descent vehicle once it lands, so heavy stuff like central airlocks, rad shielded areas, heavy equipment, etc), whose first job is to assemble the habitiat, and set up the supplies. Then they set up the return boosters and vehicle. After that they do what Man has done since he first wandered out of the treees/caves: explore and try to figure out what it is we have found. WHen done,you have another re-orbit vehicle arrive with boosters, etc, which is assembled by the current crew prior to their departure. When this is done, the next ground crew comes down, relieves the current crew, then conducts their launch. Once in mars orbit again, they transition the orbital space station, and get in the return vehicle for earth after fasenting everything down for the next crew. Its pretty dmaned complicated compared to going to th moon becasue we have to not only bring everything with us, we also have to deal with higher gravity, an atmosphere (no LEM looking things), and most importantly, it takes the better part of a year to get there and to get back, so the time scale is about 3 years per mission instead of a week or so. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 4:52:57 PM |
| #12 Landing a man on mars sounds achievable. But, how will you bring him back? How will he take off from the martian surface (the bottom of a planetary sized gravity well) unless we are planning on taking one hella lot of fuel down with us (or mine/refine it there). I think it is a good idea if it can be done. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-1-15 4:04:28 PM |
| #11 Right On OS... Let Energia be a contractor... they know what they know.... Only folks on the planet who know who to set up an assembly line for boosters. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 3:03:35 PM |
| #10 Be sure to see Lileks blog today. Excellent, as almost always. And Paul Harvey (Good-daayyy!) put down the nay-sayers, giving a list of what space exploration has meant to us in terms of medical, scientific and technological breakthroughs (no, he didn't include Tang). |
| Posted by: OldeForce 2004-1-15 3:02:14 PM |
| #9 One grain of truth not to be overlooked They do have the only true "heavy lift" rockets left in the world - bascially, if you need to send something big up there, either you piggyback it on the shuttle, or let the Russians put it in orbit. And if you want it to go higher than the ISS orbit, right now, the Russians are the only guys who have the big rockets to do that. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-1-15 2:37:37 PM |
| #8 lol or perhaps it'll end up more like the theatre incident,ivan could be gassed by his own team. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-15 2:28:27 PM |
| #7 Wow--this will be just like the Kursk tragedy all over again, only this time not even the Norwegians and Brits will be able to recover the bodies for Vlad. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-1-15 2:17:03 PM |
| #6 "the cosmonauts will work only on the Martian orbit, while an automatic module will land on the Red Planet’s surface" What's the point? Our "automatic module" (rover) is already doing this in 2004. How many flags have the Reds planted on the moon? They don't even make a marketable car, so this is one budget charter flight I wouldn't sign up for. |
| Posted by: Tom 2004-1-15 1:51:24 PM |
| #5 In other words, expect Vlady to be hitting us up for $15 billion in the first half of '04. |
| Posted by: 4thInfVet 2004-1-15 1:45:55 PM |
| #4 Do not be fooled for a second. Energia's been making claims like this for years. I could be wrong but I'd be surprised if Putin is involved in the claims. My guess is Energia is trying to position themselves to piggy back the US venture in hopes of continuing the relationship after the ISS is finished. My guess is they are barking up the wrong tree. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-1-15 1:44:04 PM |
| #3 Also makes a excellent location for our Death Ray I think one of Jupiter's moons works better. If I recall correctly, there's one of them with a great big crater where the planet-buster would be built. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-15 1:39:47 PM |
| #2 yeah this has got me real excited,its brilliant news (i know that sounds weird) Let the race begin.Bush better not bottle out on this one and let the commie's win. This could be cool to watch this whole new space race unfold over the years to come like a proper reality t.v show.Sounds mad but i'm thinking this could really spur on the commercialisation of space and we all know what that could hold for future generations. Bush was seriously cool when he announced going to the moon then mars but now there's competition its so much more of an inncentive to really do it.I just hope us Brits might have a couple of seats spare for them on the American ride to Mars...Let the Race Begin. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-1-15 1:21:26 PM |
| #1 Yes! A Race! Maybe the Chinee want to get in on the action. 2014 25-1 against anybody getting there (and back) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-15 1:19:36 PM |