Russians planning manned Mars mission

According to an article in the journal Science (Aug 15), the Russians are
planning
for a manned flight to Mars in 2018. They pick that year because of
the combination of planetary alignment and low solar activity. The person who
wrote the article feels that 2032 is more realistic, but in any case they ARE
planning it.

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.


Patrick

(Patrick) wrote in message ...
According to an article in the journal Science (Aug 15), the Russians are
planning
for a manned flight to Mars in 2018. They pick that year because of
the combination of planetary alignment and low solar activity. The person who
wrote the article feels that 2032 is more realistic, but in any case they ARE
planning it.

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.



Hi Patrick,

Russia probably couldn't afford a manned Mars mission without
international support. There are many things people here don't like to
talk about and one is international missions to Mars. In part this is
because they will mention ISS as a failure in every way including it's
international aspects. And all manned missions must follow it's
pattern, it's a law (here). Anyway, this is probably not what history
will say of ISS it's just what the folks here will say now. As you
have already noticed they tangent as quickly away from actually
talking of the subject as is possible, preferably to something Off
Topic (WMD).

I think Russia would love to do a Flags and Footprints Mission to Mars
and I hope they figure a way to do it as it is certainly worthwhile,
but It probably won't be till 2032.

--Chris Vancil

"Patrick" wrote in message
...
According to an article in the journal Science (Aug 15), the Russians are
planning
for a manned flight to Mars in 2018. They pick that year because of
the combination of planetary alignment and low solar activity. The person
who
wrote the article feels that 2032 is more realistic, but in any case they
ARE
planning it.

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.

I wouldn't be to sure about that. They're becoming fabulously wealthy from
their oil and mineral deposits. Besides, I'm pretty sure that they will be
able to get the EU on board to share the risk, and maybe even the U.S.
Problem is, as soon as Western companies are involved the cost will start to
spin out of control just as they did with ISS. They initially said ISS would
cost about $5billion. It's already estimated to cost $100billion and costs
are still rising.

My advice to them would be to get the EU on board but principally to share
the cost. I know that's politically unrealistic because European companies
will demand to be able get in on the act. At the very least: I would
recommend that they come up with a realistic budget, double that and *stick
with that* no matter what. Companies have a nasty habbit of increasing the
price once they have been given the contract, especially in tough times.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:22:16 +0200, "Ultimate Buu"
wrote:


I wouldn't be to sure about that. They're becoming fabulously wealthy from
their oil and mineral deposits.

Tell that to the aerospace engineers who drive cabs at night to make
ends meet. I'm sure they'd love to hear how fabulously wealthy Russia
has become.

Besides, I'm pretty sure that they will be
able to get the EU on board to share the risk, and maybe even the U.S.
Problem is, as soon as Western companies are involved the cost will start to
spin out of control just as they did with ISS. They initially said ISS would
cost about $5billion. It's already estimated to cost $100billion and costs
are still rising.

Um, no. "ISS" was never expected to cost $5 Billion. By the time "ISS"
was conceived in 1993-94, more than $5 Billion had already been spent
on Space Station "Freedom" (1984-1993).

The $5 Billion figure was from Reagan's first proposal (I thought it
was $8 Billion, but I could be wrong...) but that did not include
international partners (not even ESA or Japan) and that did not
include launch costs. And that $8 Billion forecast did not last very
long, obviously. The original cost cap imposed by Congress was $18
Billion in 1994, sans launch costs. That was raised to $21 Billion and
$24 Billion in subsequent years, and finally the politicians said 'no
more raising the cost cap' and demanding things like the Hab be cut
instead.

ISS costs, not including launch costs, will be probably around $30
billion when all is said and done. Still around 4x - 6x overbudget,
but hardly 20x overbudget.

Brian

On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 22:43:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

ISS costs, not including launch costs, will be probably around $30
billion when all is said and done. Still around 4x - 6x overbudget,
but hardly 20x overbudget.

It was (as you correctly recall) eight billion. Of course, that was
supposed to buy a much more capable station as well. It was supposed
to support eigh crew, IIRC, Remember also, back then, it was a zero-g
research lab, a vehicle assembly hangar, an astronomical observatory,
an earth-observation platform, a satellite servicing facility...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
(Patrick) writes:

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.

They can't. As others have said, I'd question the motives of the
writer and/or the sources.

NASA has had similar "proposals" for years. None have been funded to
date, and none are likley to be funded for years, possibly decades, if
ever.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Read one of my previous posts which talks about a Russian nuclear reactor
for use on Mars. The article claims that all the technical drawings have
been finished. Now, that's quite a difference compared to the 'vaporware'
the U.S. and Europe have for missions to Mars (i.e. some computer animations
and artist conceptions frequently not by NASA but outside SIG's). That leads
me to conclude that the Russians are a lot more serious about going to Mars
than we believe.

"Ultimate Buu" :

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
(Patrick) writes:

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.

They can't. As others have said, I'd question the motives of the
writer and/or the sources.

NASA has had similar "proposals" for years. None have been funded to
date, and none are likley to be funded for years, possibly decades, if
ever.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Read one of my previous posts which talks about a Russian nuclear reactor
for use on Mars. The article claims that all the technical drawings have
been finished. Now, that's quite a difference compared to the 'vaporware'
the U.S. and Europe have for missions to Mars (i.e. some computer
animations
and artist conceptions frequently not by NASA but outside SIG's). That
leads
me to conclude that the Russians are a lot more serious about going to Mars
than we believe.

And what is the diffirence between drawings and animations? This is still a
far cry from working hardware. Where is the metal bending taking place?

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Patrick" wrote:
According to an article in the journal Science (Aug 15), the Russians are
planning
for a manned flight to Mars in 2018. They pick that year because of
the combination of planetary alignment and low solar activity. The person who
wrote the article feels that 2032 is more realistic, but in any case they ARE
planning it.

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.

The Russians plan a lot of things. You really need to
handicap different countries when they make announcements.
The Russian "plans" seem to sound a lot more like
concrete plans than the speculative, unfunded plans they
usually are. Don't forget that the Japanese have a
"planned" manned Moon mission and NASA has a "planned"
manned Mars mission. Doesn't mean they have a snowball's
chance in hell of being funder or brought to fruition
though.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
"Patrick" wrote:
According to an article in the journal Science (Aug 15), the Russians
are
planning
for a manned flight to Mars in 2018. They pick that year because of
the combination of planetary alignment and low solar activity. The
person who
wrote the article feels that 2032 is more realistic, but in any case
they ARE
planning it.

It's hard to see how they will be able to afford such a mission though.

The Russians plan a lot of things. You really need to
handicap different countries when they make announcements.
The Russian "plans" seem to sound a lot more like
concrete plans than the speculative, unfunded plans they
usually are. Don't forget that the Japanese have a
"planned" manned Moon mission and NASA has a "planned"
manned Mars mission. Doesn't mean they have a snowball's
chance in hell of being funder or brought to fruition
though.


This is the second announcement by the Russians in less than 6 months
concerning a manned Mars mission. The first one involved the commitment or
intention for a manned Mars expedition in 2018 or thereabouts and an
invitation for the U.S. and Europe to get involved. The U.S. cold-shouldered
the Russian request until a full-plan would be put on the table. That's
sensible off course, but if the Russians delivered a detailed plan there's
no doubt the U.S. would demand major changes to the plan in any case, so why
bother. I think there should be real commitment being shown by all parties
involved (Russians, US, EU) before any detailed plans are drawn up.

"Ultimate Buu" :

"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
...

And what is the diffirence between drawings and animations? This is still
a far cry from working hardware. Where is the metal bending taking place?

I was talking about engineering drawings. The animations and artist
conceptions used by NASA aren't full-blown designs, just rough sketches
mostly based on some insights or to bring a certain point across..

And in the real world you still can't get power from a bunch of engineering
drawings, it still means nothing unless someone starts bending metal.

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp