Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

JGM · 2002-07-05 14:36:34

New AP report- check it out!

They're proposing a six-man mission in 2015 as an international effort- they would pay for 30% of the mission. Price tag $20 billion. Has to be Mars Direct.

Palomar · 2002-07-05 14:52:50

"Russia's space program hopes to work closely with NASA and the European Space Agency to build two spaceships capable of taking a crew to Mars, supporting them on the planet for up to two months and safely bringing them home, said Nikolai Anfimov, head of the Central Research Institute of Machine-Building."

*Terrific!! If they can stay on Mars for two months, I wonder what would their priority tasks be in regards to exploration, bringing back specimens, etc.? I bet the Ruskies can do it!

--Cindy

JGM · 2002-07-05 15:35:37

I'm very glad to hear that the Russians are excited about this and would make a strong internationally based proposal (and on this timeframe). Unfortunately, I don't see much chance of it really going through- and I'm not even sure it should with this mission architecture. I re-read the article and it's clear it's not Mars Direct. The plan is to have two space craft; an orbiter and a landing craft as in Apollo. Three of the crew members would stay in orbit and the others would land.

There are two things I think make Mars Direct really stand out. One is the reduced risk from the redundancy of sending the first ERV 2 years before humans are sent. The manned mission doesn't need to commence until telemetry indicates that the ERV is ready to bring them home. The other big positive is that the mission is designed to be ongoing. The fact that the manned team goes along with a second ERV implies that if all goes well a second mission is already in the works. In contrast this Russian plan sounds very risky and very much like flags and footprints all over again.

I think it can't hurt to get people thinking about this and maybe it will remind Americans that we can't be sitting on our laurels from Apollo forever. NASA will have to at least give serious thought to a Mars roadmap. I'd be curious to hear Zubrin's reaction to this.

Palomar · 2002-07-05 15:56:31

JGM: "In contrast this Russian plan sounds very risky and very much like flags and footprints all over again."

*Yeah. If that would be the sole outcome, it would provide the general public with the old "well, we've been there, why go back?" attitude.

JGM: "I think it can't hurt to get people thinking about this and maybe it will remind Americans that we can't be sitting on our laurels from Apollo forever."

*Exactly! Damn, it's been going on 30 years since the last Apollo mission. I shudder to think of telling my grandkids, "Yes, when I was a little girl, I remember the first landing of men on the moon. Ever since then, we've only had the space shuttle."

--Cindy

Canth · 2002-07-05 16:01:06

I agree with you JGM, this sounds a little too flag and footprint to me. One of the reasons I favor the space exploration act of 2002 is that it stipulates reusable craft, a sure fire attempt to makeit not just flag and footprints. I beleive that if this is a part of an ongoing permanent international program of exploration and colinization it is a great idea. If it is simply a single mission it may do more harm than good. Leaving half the crew in orbit rankles me. I would hate to be one of the people who travels farther than any other person in human history and using the road trip analogie dosen'teven get to get out of the car. That is a true waste of manpower.

Adrian · 2002-07-05 18:45:10

I think these Russian plans for a manned Mars mission are simply business as usual - in other words, it's not going to happen. Russia announces a manned Mars mission at least once every year, and nothing ever comes of it. Furthermore, neither Russia nor the ESA has the financial or political capacity to make a mission happen right now, to launch in a mere 13 years. Any possible Mars mission will be NASA led, unless there's a significant shift in policy at the ESA or in Japan (possible, but as yet unlikely).

I hate to say it, but in the current world environment I won't believe that a Mars mission will happen until a President of the United States says so. As for the Russian mission design, I don't like it either. They're probably using their own old design references.

GOM · 2002-07-05 20:49:55

I think these Russian plans for a manned Mars mission are simply business as usual - in other words, it's not going to happen.

I agree. Big talk. No ability to back it up.

Have you noticed that the Russians are very good at this game? If their proposal goes anywhere, guess who they will expect to fund it?!

Seems like we never learn....

Btw Adrian,

Welcome back. I never got a response from you regarding this thread:

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....3;st=30

Maybe you'll have time now.

Aetius · 2002-07-06 14:02:11

Alas! The Russians have been trotting out plans for the Commie 'Battlestar Galactica' to Mars for many years. Perhaps once the Chinese have a super-heavy lift version of the Long March (I read that eventually they plan to build one capable of putting 70 tons into low Earth orbit), THEY will release some Mars plans which might verge on the possible. Unfortunately, it's doubtful that the Europeans or the Americans would help the Russians fund any kind of humans-to-Mars mission. I'd love to see the Russians try to design their own version of Mars Direct, though! After all, Buran had more payload capacity than the Space Shuttle...who knows what these clever Russian engineers could come up with?

Phobos · 2002-07-06 14:45:50

There are two things I think make Mars Direct really stand out. One is the reduced risk from the redundancy of sending the first ERV 2 years before humans are sent. The manned mission doesn't need to commence until telemetry indicates that the ERV is ready to bring them home. The other big positive is that the mission is designed to be ongoing. The fact that the manned team goes along with a second ERV implies that if all goes well a second mission is already in the works. In contrast this Russian plan sounds very risky and very much like flags and footprints all over again.

I agree that the last thing we need is another flags and footprints mission. I'll probably have to dodge bullets for saying it, but I don't really care about a manned mission to Mars if it's not part of some greater effort to sustain a human presence there. Anyways, if anyone has both the technology and spirit for a manned Mars mission, it's the Russians. If they could be convinced to go with an architecture more friendly to a sustained human presence on Mars, maybe civilians could buy tickets for trips to Mars. It would be a start at least.

nirgal · 2002-07-06 18:12:15

Read this space.com article.

Canth · 2002-07-06 22:20:08

I agree phobos, a flags and footprints mission could very well do more harm than good to human presence on mars. Russia dosn't have the money to go for a sustained commitment to mars exploration. I actually have trouble seeing them able to foot a third of the bill without some major improvements in their economic situation. The benifit the Russians have is a developed heavy lift boost capable of going into production. We shall have to see how things pan out, perhaps the mission will work out to the ultimate benifit of manned martian exploration. I think it needs to be recognized by the russians that what is needed is not a mission to mars but a program of human mars exploration, habitation, and colinization. We learned our lesson with the apollo program, you have obviously screwed up if you ever feel that you have finished because planetary exploration and habitation for man can never be finished. By the time one project is finished the next needs to be more than half way out the door.

robcwillis · 2002-07-06 23:58:09

Not mentioning any names, but I am sick and tired of the xenophobic, jingoistic, ultra-nationalist, fools who can't seem to get it through their thick heads that American participation in an International Humans to Mars effort DOES NOT MEAN THE U.S. AUTOMATICALLY PAYS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROGRAMME!!! Please stop telling lies. Unilateralist thinking that rejects the value of anything outside the U.S. is a huge obstacle on the road to Mars, and could cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars that they don't need to spend. What country is most able to contribute the largest share of money to an International Programme? Obviously the U.S. is most able. Where will this American money be spent? Again, obviously in the U.S., where else? Who will get this American money? Obviously Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and United Technologies. What will they do with this money? They will pay their American managers, engineers, workers to develop and build TransHabs, Earth Return Vehicles and the like. Does this mean it can't be an international programme? NO!!! What are the Europeans, Russians, and Japanese in a good position to contribute? They can build most of the major elements of the launch vehicle and provide a launch site (Korou or Baikonur). Who will pay for this? They will!! Why? Because they can afford to, and they want to see some of their astronauts go to Mars together with American astronauts.

The mission architecture outlined in the recent Russian announcement is clearly inferior to something like Mars Direct or the NASA DRM, but it is certainly not nearly as horrendous as the Bush Senior administration's "Space Exploration Initiative" and the resulting 90 Day Report with it's "Battlestar Galactica" scheme. There is no reason why a Mars Direct/DRM type plan cannot be accomplished internationally.

Here we go again. Use of an Energia derived launch vehicle to facilitate sending humans to Mars does not mean NASA would have to "buy Energia launches from the Russians", nor would the RSA have to spend a lot of money they don't have to buy complete Energias and provide free launches to NASA. Russia can afford to contribute billions of dollars worth of existing technology and hardware now sitting in storage, such as almost 90 RD-0120 core motors. They can also afford to buy a few new RD-170s from Energomash. The best Energia configuration for Humans to Mars would mount four RD-0120 on the core, with eight Zenit strap-on boosters; four with RD-170 and four with RD-180. Single surplus SSMEs would be ideal to power the upper (TMI) stage. Such a configuration could deliver twice the payload of Magnum, and eliminate the need for on orbit rendezvous and assembly. RD-170(171) powered Zenits are currently in commercial production, mostly for Boeing Sea Launch. Pratt and Whitney supply RD-180s(RD-170 cut in half) to Lockheed Martin for use on all current versions of Atlas.

The ESA can afford to buy new Energia cores from EADS. The JSA can afford to buy TMI stages from Mitsubishi. The international partners could combine with the Ukrainian government to buy Zenits from Yuznoyhe. Energia facilities at Baikonur can be rebuilt/repaired or Kourou can be expanded. There are many, many possible options for the international production of an Energia derived ultra-heavy launcher.

I am also sick and tired of the people who whine endlessly about the U.S. having had to support the Russians on ISS. Yes indeed, the U.S. ended up paying for most of one of the Russian modules. OOOH, big deal, poor babies, you could have bought an extra half a Stealth bomber! How dare the U.S. actually spend a pittance to help out an economy in ruins! You people make me sick.

Let's look at the real world, real money, and the real truth. Have you ever heard of International Launch Services? Who provides all the hardware and facilities for their heavy launch business? Krunichev and RSC Energia. Who makes most of the profit? Lockheed Martin.

robcwillis · 2002-07-07 00:54:38

Supplementary.

I agree completely that there will be no Humans on Mars within the next 20 years unless the President of the United States says "Go". Unfortunately, the current administration obviously has no interest whatsoever in actually starting a real programme. Bush has made a few remarks claiming he has such a goal in mind, but he has taken no action whatsoever to back up his empty words. Not until the Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney is removed from office will the goals of the Mars Society stand another chance of realization.

In the meantime; Europe, Russia, and Japan can clearly state their support and financial commitment to Humans to Mars, and define exactly what they are willing to contribute: pending American participation. Hopefully, this may put pressure on whoever replaces the current U.S. administration.

Also, we don't need to spend 20 years developing brand new technologies to build a fully reusable Mars ship. Doing so will do nothing to ensure the programme continues once started. Once there is a permanent Human presence on Mars, this will be something that humanity will be hesitant to give up. It is something that a Mars Direct/DRM type architecture can achieve rapidly with existing technology.

Phobos · 2002-07-07 02:06:12

I think it needs to be recognized by the russians that what is needed is not a mission to mars but a program of human mars exploration, habitation, and colinization. We learned our lesson with the apollo program, you have obviously screwed up if you ever feel that you have finished because planetary exploration and habitation for man can never be finished. By the time one project is finished the next needs to be more than half way out the door.

Beautiful! That's what I think exactly. If we just do a superficial trip to Mars it'll be to easy for politicians to just shrug off any further manned exploration on the grounds that we've already been there and done that so they can waste money on something more substantial like increasing the thickness of ketchup. Our next big step into space needs to be major with the idea of colonization or at least setting up a permanently manned base on an extraterrestrial body. I also think such a mission to set up a permanent base should be multi-national since there'll be a possibility the base can continue to function if a country pulls out.

Also, we don't need to spend 20 years developing brand new technologies to build a fully reusable Mars ship. Doing so will do nothing to ensure the programme continues once started. Once there is a permanent Human presence on Mars, this will be something that humanity will be hesitant to give up. It is something that a Mars Direct/DRM type architecture can achieve rapidly with existing technology.

Couldn't agree more. We only need to make sure we have durable hab modules. According to Zubrin you'd only need one launch a year to support a small Mars base so focusing on a reusable vehicle so early in the game is more of a detraction to getting to Mars.

Aetius · 2002-07-07 08:09:22

Rob:

I couldn't agree with you more about misplaced hostility towards Russia's cooperation with Station Alpha. Regardless of what the NASA engineers involved like to say, without Russian participation I believe the ISS would still be a dream.

When I went to both the RSC Energia's and Encyclopedia Astronautica's websites regarding the most recent Mars mission ideas, the equipment was mostly Mir-heritage...plus the solar-electric ion thrusters, and surface landers designed back in the 70's. Does that mean that some or even most of the items couldn't be manufactured outside of Russia? Of course not. I don't honestly believe that support for anything but an international mission to Mars would stand a chance of surviving a change of American administrations...but as with anything, there's always a chance I'm wrong.

I just wish that the Russians hadn't destroyed all the machinery used to make the Energia. Otherwise, it wouldn't cost a billion USA dollars to resuscitate the Energia super heavy-lift launcher. On the hand, at least they didn't destroy the design plans, like I hear that we Americans did with the Saturn V.

Canth · 2002-07-07 10:53:39

I am not hostile toward an international mars mission. I am just afraid that russia will be unwilling to commit to a long term colinization and exploration project due to their poor financial situation. I just don't want to see a repeat of the apollo program, a few missions which have a relativly low (compared to their potential) scientific payoff and give people a reason to say "Why do we need to go to mars, we have already been there?"

Mark S · 2002-07-08 08:17:46

It's great that Russia (or anybody, for that matter) has come up with a new plan for going to Mars, even if it is flawed. But has anybody looked at some of the technical issues that plague the plan? It will launch in 2015, whereas 2014 and 2016 are the optimal launch windows for a conjunction class mission. The mission will last 440 days, 60 of which will be spent at Mars. It doesn't seem to me like this will be a conjunction-class mission at all--a Venus swingby will probably be needed.

I think that we should wait for the International Science and Technology Center to submit their plan before we draw any conclusions about the current proposal. Although the new Russian plan is hardly "battlestar galactica," it still doesn't hold a candle to good old Mars Direct.

Canth · 2002-07-08 09:33:49

I have to admit I highly prefer a conjunction class mission. I have a lot of trouble with going millions of miles and not staying for a good period of time. I find a Venus swingby possitivly idiotic especially with the high concern about radiation exposure. In fact this mission style probobly has a higher radiation exposure than a conjunction style mission.

Mark S · 2002-07-08 12:18:13

Opposition missions do carry a higher risk of cancer and a higher exposure to cosmic radiation because they pass closer to the sun and they spend more time in interplanetary space. The poor folks in the orbiting command module will have none of Mars's natural radiation shielding while the other astronauts/cosmonauts are on the ground. Furthermore, the habitation module will need more robust insulation and cooling systems because of the Venus flyby (fry-by ?) involved. The only real plus that the opposition mission offers is its short length. However, nuclear-electric rockets can cut down on the travel time for a conjunction class mission, and the minimal science gain from a short mission is a bane to the scientific community.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-08 18:08:21

I agree with Mark S that Mars Direct takes a lot of beating.
I don't know what it is with the space community, but there seems to be resistance to just accepting Dr. Zubrin's plan as being the best. O.K. ... Modify it a little if better technology becomes available. But it's essentially a simple plan with built-in redundancy for safety, and it allows for a continuing and expanding presence on Mars. Plus, it's relatively cheap and requires little extension of currently available hardware.
Why is it that otherwise sensible and practical people like the Russians (at least as far as space is concerned) seem bent on rehashing Mars plans which have already been found wanting?
Even NASA had to take Mars Direct and 'fiddle' with it!
It's like everybody is determined that they won't use MD because they don't want Bob Zubrin to get the credit for coming up with such an elegant plan while they, with all their resources, have spent 30 years producing nothing practical at all!
Does anybody else get the same kind of feeling about this?
???

Aetius · 2002-07-08 18:37:25

Shaun, you once said that you often agree with my posts.

Allow me to return the favor and tell you honestly that I often agree with yours.

I think NASA might be trying to over-engineer MD in an attempt to 'improve' safety, but I think Zubrin addressed their 'improvements' quite effectively in "Case For Mars".

Mark S · 2002-07-09 08:38:32

What is the problem with Mars Direct? Why won't anybody outside the Mars Society take it seriously without changes? I think that the main reason, or at least the point that makes me think twice about Mars Direct, is that it makes going to Mars seem so easy and affordable. Like any good "get-rich-quick" scheme, it sounds too good to be true. But the reason why people have this perception is because Mars Direct shifts the paradigm. Mass of the system is kept down through a skeleton crew, reuse of air and water, and use of indigenous Martian resources. I'm sure that the plan would lose some of its elegance after serious scrutiny by the engineering community, but it would emerge with less changes than when NASA started with MD and turned it into the 1993 DRM.

Phobos · 2002-07-09 15:23:43

I've noticed to that a lot of people are always trying to make Mars Direct a lot more complicated than it probably needs to be. Even though I sound like a half-crazed, paranoid freak when I say it, I sometimes wonder if the people in charge of such projects intentionally try to make things seem more complicated and expensive for various possible reasons. Oh well, I'll put an end to my paranoid babbling before it gets out of hand.

Canth · 2002-07-09 21:05:31

I am in favor of a somewhat different approach simply because of long term and technical considerations. I am in favor of a small fleet of reusable nuclear electric spacecraft. I recently posted about it in the thread Propulsion methods for the space exploration act of 2002. I find an unadulterated mars direct by far the best of the schemes for reaching mars using only chemical propulsion. I just find that using only chemical propulsion is wasteful and shortsighted.

Mark S · 2002-07-10 07:46:57

Canth, I couldn't agree more about the drawbacks of chemical propulsion. However, nuclear electric rockets will not be available for another 20 years, which isn't so good if you want to land on Mars as early as possible. I personally prefer nuclear thermal rockets. It would take less than ten years to develop them, they produce high thrust with twice the ISp of hydrogen/oxygen, and they can be used to generate electrical power once in space. I'd like to tweak Mars Direct so that it takes advantage of this improved propulsion method.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-05 14:36:34

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#2 2002-07-05 14:52:50

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#3 2002-07-05 15:35:37

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#4 2002-07-05 15:56:31

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#5 2002-07-05 16:01:06

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#6 2002-07-05 18:45:10

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#7 2002-07-05 20:49:55

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#8 2002-07-06 14:02:11

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#9 2002-07-06 14:45:50

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#10 2002-07-06 18:12:15

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#11 2002-07-06 22:20:08

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#12 2002-07-06 23:58:09

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#13 2002-07-07 00:54:38

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#14 2002-07-07 02:06:12

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#15 2002-07-07 08:09:22

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#16 2002-07-07 10:53:39

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#17 2002-07-08 08:17:46

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#18 2002-07-08 09:33:49

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#19 2002-07-08 12:18:13

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#20 2002-07-08 18:08:21

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#21 2002-07-08 18:37:25

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#22 2002-07-09 08:38:32

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#23 2002-07-09 15:23:43

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#24 2002-07-09 21:05:31

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

#25 2002-07-10 07:46:57

Re: Russia proposes 2015 human mission - That's a little more like it!

Board footer