Russia going to the Moon, then Mars

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pyoko

Guest
from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2364434.ece<br /><br />Russia plans to send a manned mission to the Moon by 2025, 57 years after Nasa’s Apollo mission in 1968 - and wants to build a permanent base there.<br /><br />Who thinks they can meet this deadline? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>
 
T

thebigcat

Guest
18 years? Sure. No sweat. NASA could do it in 10 of they put their minds to it. Heck, let ESA put in 10% of the money and get 50% of the glory it could be done in 15 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
The moon landing was in 1969, July 20 to be precise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
NASA is not good horse.We welcome the rusians now.But they are not the swame USSR mind you.N o serious conteder.
 
S

signalhill

Guest
They won't do it. <br /><br />Permanent bases? What a laugh. We cannot even build a space station on time and on budget. I say such claims are science fiction. There isn't a Cold War to get anyone off the Earth and to the Moon or Mars. <br /><br />With all of the available technology today, humanity remains in it's own way more than ever. NASA will not reach Mars with people in our lifetimes. And if they do, then it is 50 years away. Red Tape rules, not discovery.
 
D

dragon04

Guest
Sure they could do it. I hope they do, in fact.<br /><br />But to what <b>real</b> end? The Russians and the Chinese are no different than the 2nd and 3rd guys to climb Everest.<br /><br />There was Sir Edmund Hillary and then everyone else. See what I mean?<br /><br />I think the absolute <b>worst</b> reason, especially in this day and age to "go boldly" is because the other guy might beat you to it.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I'm actually inclined to agree with you here. I don't see it happening unless the private sector sees a profitable reason to do it. Or something major like discovering strong evidence for life on mars might do it. When I see these plans with timetables, I can only think...dime a dozen. No matter what country. But to answer the question in light of will...if Russia puts their mind to it, I have no doubt they can do it, especially in that timeframe...and so could NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
T

thebigcat

Guest
When I mentioned Mars Direct to a friend several years ago his comment was something to the effect that there would have to be piles of money laying around there.<br /><br />His meaning was, of course, that such an undertaking was going to be so expensive that without immediate pay-off for those who had invested it would never happen a second time. And really, he was right. We went the moon, took some pictures, left some footprints, did some science, put up some flags and brought home some rocks. Well, those rocks, though they did make for some interesting geology lessons, didn't turn out to be very valuable. In fact, the technology advancements made in getting us there and back have turned out to be thousands of times more valuable to business and industry than any material returns from the moon missions. For this reason, investors are going to be loath to put up funds toward the ongoing exploration of the moon, and, in my mind this is the greatest factor in why we haven't been back in over 30 years.<br /><br />There's an anectdotal story of an early demonstration of electricity for a gathering of wealthy in London. Afterwards, one woman was heard to remark to the scientist "Very interesting, Sir, but what good is it?" to which the scientist responded "Madam, what good is a newborn baby?" Famous story, I'm sure you have heard it before. Well, we don't really know what returns on investment there is going to be from going back to the moon, and really, we won't know until we do go back. But some facts are obvious. The first is the only thought that we knew the moon. The Apollo missions brought back samples, sure, but the fact is that they only scratched the surface, literally. Since then we have discovered evidence of sub-surface water at the lunar poles. Makes you wonder what else we have missed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

ashish27

Guest
Very correctly said. Many scientists have been campaigning for a manned mission to Mars but the US congress pays no heed. As for Russia, i think such promises act as bribe for its citizens, Russia is in no financial position to do so.<br /><br />Its so sad that our society today is ruled by people who have no passion for advancement of science and humanity
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
Actually, that story reputedly took place between Faraday and Queen Victoria. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
It may be the worst reason but also the most likely to get everyone motivated. I think Issac Asimov said it first. "He who controls the moon controls earth." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<i>But to what real end? The Russians and the Chinese are no different than the 2nd and 3rd guys to climb Everest. <br /><br />There was Sir Edmund Hillary and then everyone else. See what I mean? </i><br /><br />You are assuming that climbing Everest and going to the Moon are directly comparable in motivation. <br /><br />People climbed Everest because it was there - and still do so for the same reason.<br /><br />While one small reason to go to the Moon is because it is there. There were - and are - many more compelling reason.<br /><br />A better analogy would be Anatarctica. people did not stop goign just because Amundsen reached the pole. They continue to do so today for a great many good reasons, ieven if most people aren't aware of it.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
That sounds more like Heinlein than Asimov. Heinlein was much more interested in power and control. But either way it is wrong. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
I googled the phrase and found this:<br />http://www.scifi.com/sfw/screen/classic/sfw5047.html<br />Destination Moon, Robert Heinlein.<br />"Not only is the moon easier to reach than one might think, Barnes tells them, it's also a national imperative. There's no way to stop a missile attack from the moon, he warns. Whoever controls the moon controls Earth. <br />"<br />Never really made much sense to me, but wouldnt it have been great if all that american and russian money wasted on nuclear buildup had been wasted building two useless moon 'defense' bases <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.. probably would each have been the size of a small city by now!
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Those were the days! Bunch of teenagers with a wise mentor build a rocket that takes them to the Moon where they find a bunch of Nazis are already there.<br /><br />Just one of the many steps on the road to not taking Heinlein seriously.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
I pretty much agree with your friend that there would have to be piles of money just to do "Mars Direct" much less do the previous concept that had been around since 1969 or so. That concept was the Von Braun 12 man 2 nuclear powered mother ship mission. Mars missions in 1969 were estimated at $100 B dollars or around $500B dollars today. The Zubrin plan was estimated to be $20B dollars. NASAs modified direct was estimated at $50B dollars.<br /><br />I came to believe we will have to discover microbiological life on mars in order for public imagination to be sufficiently engaged enough to turn loose the bucks.<br /><br />The current VSE Constellation program is kind of an Apollo 2 except for the timetable and the lack of Apollo sized monetary committment.<br /><br />Unfortunately, during the Clinton Administration second term, we had piles of money...a surplus budget for the first time since 1969 and still kept NASA spending at the humble post 1973-74 levels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
B

bdewoody

Guest
All that a country that exclusively possessed a base on the moon would have to do is throw rocks (big ones) at their desired target back here on earth. To avoid retalliation they would put the base on the far side.<br /><br />I don't advocate this but I do see it as a reason why no power here would let another occupy the moon solo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>
 
S

signalhill

Guest
I agree with qso1. Not only because he agrees with me, but because he raises further issues. <br /><br />Manned missions are currently low Earth orbit based and have become policy. The space station is now what .... ten years old and is not even finished yet. Why even have a moon base? It's too far away to just grow some plants and have astronauts swallow suspended liquid droplets in mid-air for the camera. There is no Moon based anything even planned as long as the space station has barely been used. <br /><br />Also with talk of using the Moon as the springboard and experiment for Mars missions, such a thing is NOWHERE near being reality. When press releases mention using the moon for this purpose, it's actually bad news. All it means is that a Martian landing is nowhere near happening, forever postponed until we "go back to the moon." What absolute crap.<br /><br />We've already been there. And Mars habitat experiments have existed on Earth for years. How many more centuries of preparation are needed, then? <br /><br />Technology exists to send people to Mars right now. The low orbit and "Moon bases" are rhetorical barriers to exoplanetary human missions. <br /><br />
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<i>Manned missions are currently low Earth orbit based and have become policy. The space station is now what .... ten years old and is not even finished yet.</i><br /><br />Not quite nine years and has been doing a lot of useful work in that time. Given that time has included in Russian economic crisis and the Columbia disaster I think we are doing well. It would be finished in just over three years.<br /><br /><i> Why even have a moon base? It's too far away to just grow some plants and have astronauts swallow suspended liquid droplets in mid-air for the camera.</i><br /><br />A lunar base would do a lot mroe than that. And it is a bit diffuclt to suspend liquid droplets in 1/6th G<br /><br /><i>There is no Moon based anything even planned as long as the space station has barely been used.</i><br /><br />Correct. Which is why no Moon base is being planned, as opposed to being talked about. First we have to learn a lot more in LEO, then go back to the Moon on a regular basis.<br /><br /><i> with talk of using the Moon as the springboard and experiment for Mars missions, such a thing is NOWHERE near being reality. When press releases mention using the moon for this purpose, it's actually bad news. it means is that a Martian landing is nowhere near happening, forever postponed until we "go back to the moon." What absolute crap.</i><br /><br />Calling the Moon a springboard for Mars is misleading and incorrect. It will always be easier to go directly to Mrs rather than via the Moon. <br /><br />However, lunar experience in almost every field will be a very powerful learning tool for going to Mars and will allow a lot of technology development to be funded under a different program.<br /><br /><i>We've already been there.</i><br /><br />And there are lots of reasons to go back.<br /><br /><i>And habitat experiments have existed on Earth for years. How many more centuries of preparation are needed, then?</i><br /><br />The stations (I assume you mean things like FMARS, MDRS, and the 500 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
S

signalhill

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Not quite nine years and has been doing a lot of useful work in that time. Given that time has included in Russian economic crisis and the Columbia disaster I think we are doing well. It would be finished in just over three years."<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>That is abysmal. 12 years to just finish a low-Earth orbiting platform? And then 45 to 55 more years to go to Mars to collect some rocks and tee off and leave? <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Correct. Which is why no Moon base is being planned, as opposed to being talked about. First we have to learn a lot more in LEO, then go back to the Moon on a regular basis. "<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I'm glad to see your honesty; you admit that there is no such Moon base being planned. This confirms that the occasional press-releases that speak of a manned Mars mission is science fiction. <br /><br />The plan for manned Mars missions nearly always includes the backout contingent clause that we must have some extended fictional presence on the Moon first. And not even that is planned. <br /><br />And what is actually planned requires decades to unfold only in low-Earth orbit. <br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"<br />But it shouldn't take centuries to get to Mars, if a few things happen. If we continue our robotic exploration of Mars, if we finish the ISS and use it well, if we do back to the Moon, and if we build on this expertise to go to Mars, we should be going there in 25-30 years time. "<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />The use of "if" is exactly why it will take centuries to get there --to just collect a bag of rocks for a few hours on the surface will take at least 50 years from today given all that must happen before; including stalled budgets and political red tape. And this is for only a mission to be present for less than 3 days on the surface.<br /><br />To live there for any extended time, even for a month, will
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
I dont think anyone really disagrees that all these ifs are unfortunate. That is why the idea of Russia returning to the moon is so pleasing. It could prompt another space race, this time more of the form of car companies researching racing cars to raise the reputation of their technology than cold war paranoia.<br /><br />Look at how much was achieved in a single decade when America was motivated by national pride.
 
S

signalhill

Guest
Exactly. But the sad truth is that most of what motivates space exploration is militarily motivated/competitive. This is why pet projects like the mission to Pluto, as modest and tiny as it is, falls upon deaf and uninterested ears. But if China was doing it, we'd suddenly listen. <br /><br />Very sad.
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Calling the Moon a springboard for Mars is misleading and incorrect. It will always be easier to go directly to Mrs rather than via the Moon.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />come on, I am dead sure nobody here (and even most public) takes the term 'Moon being springboard for Mars' to mean launching rocket from the Moon to go to Mars, that's insulting to SignalHill poster to reply to his post like that and this type of misinterpreted replies are so arch typical of company PR representatives<br /><br />your reply to him on all the points reads like some reply from a NASA PR man or a manager speaking for his company, that's why I asked not long ago (after I received a reply from you in very similar style to one of my posts) if you weren't on NASA's payroll - which you aren't as you said - still it reads like that, you just don't see an iota wrong on NASA's strategic approach to space program and that doesn't sound like good estimation (at least in my eyes)<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, lunar experience in almost every field will be a very powerful learning tool for going to Mars and will allow a lot of technology development to be funded under a different program. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />such argument - it is 'different program' to obtain more funding $s - as a way to bamboozle or coax public/congressmen into ponying up more into the NASA budget bodes not well for the future planned space program and speaks more in favour of pesimism (as expressed in SignalHill's post) than optimism I should think<br /><br />even being optimist, when I see those decades being thrown about as targets for going to Mars I don't have any faith it will happen in those time frames and not even with some five or ten year added to it (as with initial time plans/budget for ISS for example) but more like fifty or how many years putting is safely beyond my expected lifespan and therefore care (of cou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
"Not quite nine years and has been doing a lot of useful work in that time. Given that time has included in Russian economic crisis and the Columbia disaster I think we are doing well. It would be finished in just over three years." <br /><br /><i>That is abysmal. 12 years to just finish a low-Earth orbiting platform?</i> <br /><br />Why is this abysmal? You need to keep in mind several facts:<br /><br />There is nothing unusual in the length of time taken to assemble the ISS. Mir took 10 years to assemble as well.<br /><br />Of the 12 years to complete the ISS, 5 were taken up by delays that were not the fault of the project – 2 years because of the Russian economic crisis and 3 because of the Columbia disaster. Actual assembly time is therefore 7 years.<br /><br />The ISS is the largest and most complex satellite ever constructed. There is nothing “just†about such a task. How long do you expect it to take? Against what standard are you comparing it to?<br /><br /><i> And then 45 to 55 more years to go to Mars to collect some rocks and tee off and leave?</i><br /><br />So is it going to take 45-55 years or several centuries to get to Mars? What is your basis for this time frame?<br />What is wrong with going to Mars to collect rocks? What is wrong with the astronauts having fun while they work? Why shouldn’t they leave at the end of the mission – or are you advocating a one way trip? <br /><br />"Correct. Which is why no Moon base is being planned, as opposed to being talked about. First we have to learn a lot more in LEO, then go back to the Moon on a regular basis. " <br /><br /><i>I'm glad to see your honesty; you admit that there is no such Moon base being planned. This confirms that the occasional press-releases that speak of a manned Mars mission is science fiction. </i><br /><br />Why should I “admit†a simple, well known fact? To my knowledge there is no funded Moon base project in NASA or anybody else’s budget. The same with human Mars missions. Howeve <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts