Russia says that it can get Humans to Mars by the year 2014 at a tenth of the cost that the United States is proposing. I know Russia has a lot of expertise in buling propulsion systems and spacecrafts, but Russia I remember in the Soviet times couldn’t even get a man on the Moon, let alone Mars. Maybe some of the odds can tip in thier favour for the amounts of risks they are willing to take. But financially, they aint got a shot in hell.
Can Russia do it? And what other powers could initiate a new Space Race, are they to be taken seriously?
Do you have any reason to think the Russians made any serious sustained effort to put a man on the Moon? As far as I remember they did land a craft on the Moon, and brought some Lunar stones back home. That they couldn’t have put a man on Mars twenty years ago is hardly something to hold against them. Not that I’ve ever heard any claim they had any serious plans for that either.
The Russians have had remarkable success with relatively few resources. Sputnik. First man, woman, etc in space. The space station Mir. It could also be noted that the International Space Station is currently being supplied solely by perhaps most stable rocket ever developed; the Soyuz.
Still 10% of the cost and by 2014 seems like bold claims.
Some think China has a very well though out space program. With long term planning and goals, including a manned space base on the moon.
ESA has the Ariane rocket. The previous version which was very stable. The new model has had some starting problems. Hopefully they’ve been fixed now.
- Rune
It’s one thing to say that they know how to budget the project. It’s another to write a check. They may in fact know how to do it for less, but the question is, where are they going to get the money.
Apart from budget, my skepticism of such a claim (where did you get this by the way?) is that Russia has never successfully sent a probe to Mars, and they’ve made twice as many attempts as the US.
On the other hand, they did manage to operate a space station for 15 years without a single loss of life. Their Soyuz and Progress spacecraft are currently keeping the ISS astronauts alive while the US Shuttles remain grounded following the Columbia accident. They also have a refined, modular spacecraft (the Soyuz) that can easily be adopted to various different manned missions, perhaps including a Mars flight. From Astronautix:
So in terms of technology, I think they are in a better position to attempt a manned Lunar or Mars flight. The only problem is the money.
Um, I probably shouldn’t have spoken before checking the latest news. Here’s one of the articles that report Russia’s claim of a 2014 Mars flight:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_533311,00040005.htm
The claim is made by Energia, the company that builds Russia’s major rockets.
But reading this article, it sounds like the Russians want a part of the US space exploration program:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001837839_russia16.html
So I think the claim referred to by the OP was just Energia boasting about their technological capabilities, and not an official government position.
I’ve posted at length on this subject before, but with the search function still not working completely, I can’t find it.
The Russian space program has been very successful in many ways. As WinstonSmith points out, they’ve been the first to put an orbiting satellite into space, they had the first man in space, the first woman, and the first established orbital space station. The Soyuz rockets are remarkably cheap but reliable, even to the point that non-spacers can purchase their way into space, and have done so.
The 2014/10% claim is a bold one, but not laughable. People seem to like to laugh at the Russian Space Program (see the movie Armageddon for a particularly blatant example), but that’s usually based on a poor understanding of just how much they’ve accomplished.
scotandrsn is correct that where the money will come from is a problem, but no moreso than for the Bush Administration plans for Mars. Also, it occurs to me that the Russians have been more willing to give those who are willing to pay short “trips” into space… perhaps that could be used to partially fund the Mars program. Personally, I’m more curious as to how the American space program plans to pay for itself – the Russians seem to give their space program higher priority than we do.
So in terms of technology, I think they are in a better position to attempt a manned Lunar or Mars flight. The only problem is the money.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The Russians have attempted 16 missions to Mars. Most have ended in failure, and they have collected very little data. Check out this link. Turns out I was worng about the “twice as many”. Damn, we’ve been busy lately. We’ve launched 14 missions(Spirit is 15, Opportunity is 16), 5 of which failed (Opportunity still pending), the rest more than making up for it by almost routinely exceeding expectations. The Japanese have launched one, but that has run into trouble.
The Russians have not designed even one mission for Mars that behaved the way they expected it to. The recently-bandied statistic that 2/3 of Mars missions have failed, while technically true, fails to mention that Russia accounts for almost three quaters of all failed missions there. The cautious restraint shown by US space scientists in light of the fact that they can not pinpoint the cause of these failures, and thus can not rule themselves out as the next to blow it, is admirable. They have ample reason to gloat over the comparative track record, and who knows, probably do in private.
So, in over forty years, Russia has never successfully completed a Mars mission. Yet in the next ten, on the resources available to them now, they’re suddenly going to do a cheap manned mission successfully? Gawanwitcha!
Dammit… must remember to turn off sig.
Now, I could see a joint venture succeeding, in the same way that the ISS only worked when we begrudgingly combined the US’s shuttle success with the Russian’s space station success.
If we could combine our Mars success with their life-support expertise, we could have a resoundingly successful manned mission on our hands, that would have scientific and cultural repercussions for years to come.
But I think we’re going to have to wait for a bunch of old moldy congressional Cold Warriors to die off before we see support for that.
I forgot to mention the apparently failed ESA Beagle in my earlier post
So the score stands at:
US: 16 Attempts, 11.5-13 successes* (72-82%)
USSR/Russia: 16 Attempts, 0 successes
Japan: 1 Attempt, 0 successes
Europe: 1 Attempt, 0 successes
*(Spirit: so far so good; Opportunity: wait)
I don’t think you can extrapolate unmanned mission expertiese into manned spaceflight. The challenges involved in a manned Mars flight are similar to those faced by an orbital space station, and very different from those of unmanned Mars probes. JPL doesn’t know how to build manned spacecraft.
I think the Beagle was not an ESA project but exclusive British, that piggybagged on the ESA Mars express (incidentally launched from a Soyuz rocket) which so far is doing very well. Also the Beagle was a very much hobby room project compared to the American rover missions, so it’s hardly fair to compare. I expect the Russians’ Mars probes were also low cost compared to NASA’s. Another way to compare would be to sum the total cost of failed missions.
I agree the life-support issues are similar to a space station, and the Russians excel there, but there are essentially no differences in building a craft that can go the distance, land successfully and maintain contact (except that a human can bring more onsite problem solving skills to the task). At this, the Russians have proven themselves to be woefully inadequate on the small scale of probes. What then of the larger scale of human craft? You can’t send cosmonauts on a 2.5 year trip in a Soyuz- or Apollo-sized capsule.
For the record, the JPL has never involved itself in manned missions. That’s left to the Johnson Space Center in Texas and other NASA sites.
What many people don’t know is that during the space race the Soviets were launching heavy rockets in much great numbers than Americans were and with relatively more sucess. Russian/Soviet Rockets are cheap and used to be quite reliable.
Add to that lower wage and industrial costs of Russia... I think 10% might be too little... but certainly 20-30% cost is quite feasible. Finally they would take greater chances at sending a less "trustful" but cheaper spaceship to Mars. Whilst NASA would increase costs in all that extra safety.Russia has also soft-landed several spacecraft onto the surface of Venus, a feat that seems to me to be more difficult than a Mars landing. Russia has also landed rovers on the moon.
The Russian space program is nothing to be made light of. They have a lot of capabilities, and a lot of experience getting things done on low budgets. For example, how much does a Russian engineer make in comparison to his U.S. counterpart? How about all the support personnel?
Maybe they really can do it that cheaply.
The Zvezda ISS module is based on the Mir core module, and has enough space and equipment for a prolonged stay or trip. Energia says they can design a Mars spacecraft based on the Zvezda design. (My first link above)
That was my point. The NASA people who work on unmanned Mars spacecraft have no experience with manned spaceflight, and vice versa. I don’t think the transfer of technology between different centers is all that smooth.
I’m going to throw India’s name into the ring… I wish I could post something, but I have to go out right now!! Discuss away!
Zvezda’s a good design, and a promising avenue to follow. Again, I don’t doubt the Russian’s ability to create a self-sustaining module, I simply doubt their ability to go the distance. IANAStatistician, but I think when you have 16 attempts on both sides, with a 75% success rate on one side, and a 0% success rate on the other, you have to ascribe it to something other than chance. Given their track record of sending things to Mars that they ever hear from again, you wouldn’t find me trusting MY life to a Russian Mars probe anytime soon.
As to your second point, the JPL usually only design’s the stuff that goes into the lauch vehicle. The actual rocket that gets it off the ground and sends it on its trajectorial way is usually something that comes out of Stennis, in Alabama, if something new is required, or one of the many missiles already in production, if not. You wouldn’t want to transfer the latest JPL landing technology (the wad-o’-airbags used on Pathfinder and Spirit/Opportunity) for a manned mission, anyway. They estimate Spirit bounced 26 times before it came to a rest. You wouldn’t get me up in that, either.
Well, I guess we won’t know until (unless) they try. I don’t mean to belittle NASA’s technological capabilities; my main point was that the Russians have more off-the-shelf hardware which can be used on a Mars flight.
It would have been interesting if the Europeans decided to invest in and cooperate with the Russians on their manned Mars program to compete with the US. They already have a very close relationship - the Mars Express probe was launched on a Russian Soyuz/Fregat booster, for example. Cooperation may be more productive, but competition is fun. 
p.s. Nitpick: Stennis is in Mississippi, Marshall is in Alabama. (Though both are involved in manned spaceflight)
The points being made about the Russian rockets are certainly valid. There’s no real American equivilent to the Proton booster, and nothing like the Energia.
Energia, despite being no longer operational, could be brought back fairly easily. Well, easier than bringing back the Saturn V.