Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

rstones8 · 2004-04-11 00:27:24

Anyone seen anything about this supposed mission by a private Russian company to put six men on Mars sometime around 2011? (somewhere I even read 2009). It sounds ridiculous. They say they can do it with a budget of about $4 billion, in-orbit assembly requiring 15 launches, a total weight of 300 tons, and all in less than 7 years. They attribute the extremely low cost to usage of "already existing components." And the best part... they plan to make the mission more profitable by turining it into a reality television show. Give me a break. First of all, what components? And secondly, I think they should try sucessfully landing an unmanned mission before making claims like these. To me it sounds more like a shot to see if they could get in the papers for a day, than a practical mission. But hey, if they can pull it off that would be great. Im just not holding my breath.

Euler · 2004-04-11 01:21:48

I have seen it mentioned, but no details. Where did you find that the 300 ton spacecraft mass? That is pretty low for a 6-person mission. It might be doable for a one way mission though...

rstones8 · 2004-04-11 10:39:39

I got the 300 tons from an article that I found linked through [http://www.marsnews.com]www.marsnews.com, and there are two other articles on this story there as well, none of which provide very good details.

Bill White · 2004-04-11 17:18:34

A Zvedza module (same as at ISS) would be docked to an inflatable module (like TransHab) plus a lander to be built.

15 Proton launches would cost less than a billion US dollars based on the most recent Proton contract for launch of an Indian comsat.

= = =

In many ways this copies Project Constellation ideas being pushed by Boeing, only they use Russian stuff copied off their ISS experience.

David Ellard · 2004-04-11 19:15:21

Sounds similar to my [http://www.users.on.net/davidellard/ProtonMars.pdf]Proton Mars article.

I think the Russians are way ahead of the US in this type of ability, they have a cheap heavy booster (Proton), three generations of highly successful space station modules, and the equivalent capabilities of the CEV in the Soyuz.

Bill White · 2004-04-11 19:19:29

Sounds similar to my [http://www.users.on.net/davidellard/ProtonMars.pdf]Proton Mars article.
I think the Russians are way ahead of the US in this type of ability, they have a cheap heavy booster (Proton), three generations of highly successful space station modules, and the equivalent capabilities of the CEV in the Soyuz.

All they need is money, which Chirac might give them.

Euler · 2004-04-11 21:49:15

Your Proton Mars plan is interesting. Some of the mass estimates seem low, but they may be workable. One thing that you might need to change is your use of Soyuz. Soyuz has a service lifetime of only 6 months, which is why the Soyuz spacecraft that are attached to ISS are rotated twice each year.

What I am not sure about is how the Russians plan on doing a 6-man mission with greenhouses, medical facilities, and a 10-ton rover for the price of your 3-man plan without those things.

rstones8 · 2004-04-11 21:51:36

Looks like I should have done a little more research before posting about how ridiculous this Russian venture sounded. It seems from your comments that this could actually work, assumung funding holds up. It just seems to me that 4 billion is not very much, when compared to projected costs here in the States. I know NASA costs are always extremely higher than what they should and could be, but still. I mean even stripped down plans without orbital assembly such as Mars Direct are estimated at least at 30 billion. So for this Russian plan, what would be their biggest setback, lack of funds, complexity of mission, etc? Is a date of around 2011 practial for this mission, and what are its chances of sucess? I sure hope my initial assumptions of this plan were wrong, and that they do pose a cance of getting there soon. Maybe it will give the US the kick in the rear that it needs to really get going ourselves.

Euler · 2004-04-11 22:03:51

Mars direct was projected to cost in the 20-50 billion range, but most of that is engineering work before the first mission. The cost for each additional mission is less than 5 billion. So if you use only existing parts, you can decrease the cost for the first mission substantially.

David Ellard · 2004-04-11 22:17:26

I don’t think extending the Soyuz in-flight life should be any major drama; after all it uses storable propellants, and will essentially remain dormant for most of the mission. I imagine building a replacement would be prohibitively more expensive then modifying the current version.

The figure that Rstones quoted for Mars Direct is the NASA number, I think Zubrin estimated it could be done for around the 5 billion mark, if a private company or individual wanted too.

I can’t see why the Russian’s couldn’t do it for fewer than 5, given their head start on beyond Earth orbit missions (My Opinion), but of course it depends on how they go about it.

Does anyone have any details on this mission plan, does it use ISRU like Mars direct?

Bill White · 2004-04-11 23:05:17

"Doing Mars" requires three things:

<1> Cooperation from a national government that has access to heavy lift (or lots of medium lift) and space-rated nuclear reactors;

<2> Billions and billions of dollars (or euros);

<3> Reasons sufficient to persuade those who control <1> and <2> to fund the mission. (The why question)

clark · 2004-04-12 10:30:27

As far as I am aware, there is only one nation that currently is working towards a space-rated nuclear reactor...

atitarev · 2004-04-13 00:48:27

Robert Zubrin in his "Case for Mars" said that Americans could buy all the technology for 4 billion dollars from Russians to get a Mars mission and the book was written in the nineties. It's just a matter of cooperation. I don't think the French will pay for the mission. The US could afford this but they prefer to do it themselves and pay 30 billions and spend 30 years.

bolbuyk · 2004-04-13 12:30:04

Ambitious plans, but I think if they use the Energia instead of the Proton it could be realistic. The only real missing element is the capability to land on Mars. The Sowjet-Union has not been succesfull in this. What is the real reason? Is their DeepSpace Network not sufficient (as far as I know their antennas do not cover the total 360 degrees longitudes).

Keep in mind that the experience of staying long in space is much bigger in Russia than in America, technically, psychologically and medically.

BTW a Zvezda-like module seems really small. :bars2:

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-13 21:40:35

Well of course... hardly a surprise...

The ESA and RSA have very little money. The ESA is allright at building working probes and such, but their rockets are poor and expensive. Russia has terrible luck with building good probes, but has an array of reliable and inexpensive launch vehicles.

And with Nasa threatening to do somthing under PlanBush that would substantially belittle the European "space pride," they of course had to do a "me too!" Before PlanBush though, I seriously doubt that either agency was pondering getting people past Earth orbit.

The USAF has also broken off ties with Nasa to a large degree, following the Shuttle debacle and more recently the X-37 project(s) where Nasa has failed to meet their end of the bargain. For instance, the USAF more or less paying for Boeing/LockMart to develop EELV rockets that are no more effective than Shuttle for most launches, even before Columbia disintigrated.

And when you talk of ESA/RSA/China "coming into the fold," which fold are you referring to ISA? Your fold?

bolbuyk · 2004-04-14 05:47:59

IMO when ESA and RSA work toggether, theree is really no problem. ESA has it´s own DSN and experience with inteerplanetary probes. OK, the Beagle hasn´t landed, but keep in mind succesful projects like Ulysses and Giotto. Also Russia has beautiful succeses by projects like Vega and Luna sample return missions.

Combining ESA and RSA will really make good possibilities. Kourou is the best launch site for low-inclination-orbits. By launching an Energia in LEO, I think you can put nearly 250 tons in orbit. Yet, unfortunately, the Ariane 5 is expensive and somewhat untrustable, but the Ariane-4 was a big commercial succes!! This shows the potentials are big.

The only question is: Will the ESA-country´s stimulate more their spaceflight than it is yet the case? It´s a matter of choice, not of technical possibilities or economic situation.
:laugh:

clark · 2004-04-14 09:56:48

Russia, USA, EU/ESA, and China will come into the International Space Agency Fold. It is the best and most logical and cost effective way to move into the Space Frontier, and on the Mars, and Beyond!

What does ISA bring to the table with the various national space agencies?

You're not a part of the UN. You have no formal recognition from any national space agency. Why does any national government need ISA?

ISA has little to no resources to bring to bear in this matter- few, if any, politcal connections to bring the proper people together. No assests, other than a web portal and some diagrams. No technical capabilities that make you unique.

Sorry to seem brutal, but I fail to see why any national space agency would be interested in the ISA. You point out that international partnerships already exsist (some without the USA), so it's not like you are filling a void here.

rstones8 · 2004-04-14 11:13:57

My thoughts exactly, clark.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-14 12:26:57

Going to have to third that motion Clark

Loads of spirit, organizational skills, and some neat ideas that other people had already are good and such, but I fail to see how anyone should have much faith in the ISA as it stands now.

rstones8 · 2004-04-14 13:29:57

Juat another comment on this whole ISA thing:

I dont see how someone with little or no international connections can start an orginization such as this out of nowhere and expect space agencies across the globe to just jump aboard, as if international cooperation was a brilliant, new and unheard of idea. I think the concept behing ISA is a great one, more international cooperation when it comes to space would benefit us all greatly, but IMO if such an organization were to be sucessfull it would have to be formed by some sort of joint treaty between participating countries or space agencies, rather than a third-party begging them to join.

Oh, and What's With all of the Capital Letters? It Kind of Makes Things a little Hard to Follow. ???

dicktice · 2004-04-14 18:02:14

I simply object to the blatant for-free self-promotion aspects, which are cluttering up these forums. I know I'm pretty weird, but this guy's creepy--I mean--outta sight!

clark · 2004-04-14 21:09:00

I second that dicktice.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-04-11 00:27:24

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#2 2004-04-11 01:21:48

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#3 2004-04-11 10:39:39

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#4 2004-04-11 17:18:34

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#5 2004-04-11 19:15:21

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#6 2004-04-11 19:19:29

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#7 2004-04-11 21:49:15

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#8 2004-04-11 21:51:36

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#9 2004-04-11 22:03:51

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#10 2004-04-11 22:17:26

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#11 2004-04-11 23:05:17

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#12 2004-04-12 10:30:27

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#13 2004-04-13 00:48:27

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#14 2004-04-13 12:30:04

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#15 2004-04-13 21:40:35

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#16 2004-04-14 05:47:59

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#17 2004-04-14 09:56:48

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#18 2004-04-14 11:13:57

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#19 2004-04-14 12:26:57

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#20 2004-04-14 13:29:57

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#21 2004-04-14 18:02:14

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

#22 2004-04-14 21:09:00

Re: Russians to Mars by 2011? - I seriously doubt it.

Board footer