NASA and ESA pen Mars agreement

The union will start with a European-led orbiter in 2016, and continue with surface rovers in 2018, and then perhaps a network of landers in 2018. The ultimate aim is a mission to return Mars rock and soils to Earth labs.

Their broad vision would encompass the following launch opportunities:

* 2016: A European-led orbiter to study trace gases, including methane, in Mars' atmosphere. The mission would also put a static meteorological station on the surface. Critically, Europe would handle the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of this station - a capability it has yet to demonstrate.
* 2018: European and American rovers would be despatched to Mars. The US would do the EDL.
* 2020: "Under consideration" is a network of landers focused on geophysics and the environment.

Source

Why, why, why, why, whyyyyy!?

For the billions this will cost, NASA and ESA could send people to Mars, or at least be well on their way toward that goal! But no, again they want to spend all that money and invest a decade in experiments that would literally take an astronaut an hour or so to accomplish. It seems to me that they're trying to make work for these scientists, labs and contractors, nothing more. Why else would we be doing these ridiculous exercises when we have the technology to send people there to do all those experiments and countless others in a tiny fraction of the time?

I'm beginning to hope that Russia, China and India start to do some posturing to those ends, maybe light a fire under NASA/ESA's ass so they get back on track.

Stupid NASA , ESA, and ALL the other 'space agencies' combined, all that 'brain power', all those supposedly intelligent people banging on about Mars or indeed the moon.
Wasting Billions of Dollars, Pounds, Euros or whatever funds doing it all seperately, like the latest moon missions to find water, 2 probes from different countries to find out the same information.
Why not POOL their resources and do a GLOBAL space agency instead of them all jockeying for 'supremacy'?
It might actually restore some respect to them if they thought about GLOBAL consequences instead of trying to be singular entities.


Stupid stupid stupid people..


Lots of smarts but no commonsense.But at least this is a step in the right direction but still not enough, but you all see my point? 2 sets of probes doing the same thing, why not bite the bullet, build a ship big enough for a manned crew withthe pooled resources, go to Mars orbit drop a couple of probes and hey presto, all the information you could want.

[edit on 20/11/09 by DataWraith]

reply to post by DataWraith


Just doing one joint probe wouldn't cost enough money, or wouldn't give enough people busy work.

If you would've asked me in 1999, what year people would set foot on the Mars, or even the moon; I would've been astounded if it was later than 2010-2015. Now NASA is talking 2045-2050, I'll be an old man by then

this is why we must take it upon ourselves(those who really want to explore mars) and go there ourselves without going through any of the current space agencies. i say invest in these private companies that are developing commercial space vehicles. start doing personal research on geology,biology, astrobiology, basically any -ology that would be of benefit to exploring a new world. i'm sick and darn tired of how these space agencies with billions of dollars are creeping along decades at a time.

this is the only way we're ever gonna get off this planet and start colonies. and mark me paranoid all you like, but that's the only way our species is gonna survive in the long run.


edit to add, at this rate it'll be 2100 or 2200 before we start colonizing mars.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by optimus primal]

reply to post by optimus primal


If we move at a pace similar to the moon landings, we'll probably arrive on Mars for the first time around 2045-2050 as predicted by NASA, go back 3 or 4 more times gathering rock samples and then around 2110 we'll start considering a permanent presence there... which won't actually pan out until 2150.

The private sector is a lot more promising, but they need some serious funding to make a trip to Mars happen. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on Russia laying the first foot prints on Mars as it stands. They've made no secret of their aspirations to colonize the solar system, while NASA is content with orbiting space stations and robotic probes.

reply to post by ZombieOctopus


Which makes you wonder: why is america giving up the space race before it's really gotten anywhere?

reply to post by optimus primal


Well, space exploration and technology is really an investment in the future, it doesn't offer an immediate payout, whereas things like war are resources do. Going to Mars won't make anyone money right off the bat, the technology will need to be proven over time. After it's safety is established and it starts to become inappeasable for us normal people and investors to get to Mars, thats when there will be money to be made. You have to spend money to make money and right now it doesn't seem like anyone wants to spend it. NASA and ESA are content spending the bare minimum to keep people in their jobs and not rock the boat.

This is of course barring any sort of conspiratorial discussion

reply to post by ZombieOctopus

A manned mission to Mars would be HUGELY more expensive than robotic missions. Cost estimates for a Manned Mars range quite a bit, but about $100 or $200 billion seems to be the going estimates. Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan is thought to be about $60 Billion, but that cost covers getting there and walking around (a bit like Apollo), and does not include the infrastructure needed for detailed exploration and science.

Even if we consider the cost of a manned Mars mission to be at the extreme low-end of the estimates -- say $75 Billion -- that's still exponentially greater than a robotic mission. For example, the twin-rovers that are now on Mars cost less than $1 Billion, even with the 5-year extension to the program (the original 90-day mission was $850 Million). The Mars Science Lab being built right now is considered to be the most expensive robotic mission to date, and its budget is "only" $2 Billion.

Considering these known costs for past robotic missions and estimates for a future manned mission, one manned Mission would cost as much as 30 to 50 robotic missions. Under this new joint-venture, Europe is only giving about $1.5 Billion dollars, which would barely cover the cost of one robotic mission (let alone 30), and would only cover about 2% of even the cheapest manned mission estimated cost.

I agree that going to Mars would be worth it in the long run. Humans explore -- it's what we do. Plus the science and engineering culture required to get to Mars would be a boost to American and world productivity. However, even if all the money from this new NASA/ESA joint venture were instead put toward a manned mission, that would barely scratch the surface of the total manned mission costs.


[edit on 11/21/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by DataWraith
Stupid NASA , ESA, and ALL the other 'space agencies' combined, all that 'brain power', all those supposedly intelligent people banging on about Mars or indeed the moon.
Wasting Billions of Dollars, Pounds, Euros or whatever funds doing it all seperately, like the latest moon missions to find water, 2 probes from different countries to find out the same information.
Why not POOL their resources and do a GLOBAL space agency instead of them all jockeying for 'supremacy'?
It might actually restore some respect to them if they thought about GLOBAL consequences instead of trying to be singular entities.


Stupid stupid stupid people..


Lots of smarts but no commonsense.But at least this is a step in the right direction but still not enough, but you all see my point? 2 sets of probes doing the same thing, why not bite the bullet, build a ship big enough for a manned crew withthe pooled resources, go to Mars orbit drop a couple of probes and hey presto, all the information you could want.

[edit on 20/11/09 by DataWraith]

Maybe you should ask these "stupid" people what they think about global cooperation. The truth is we would LOVE for all the money to be pooled in one program and have everyone working together. The problem is not the scientists or the engineers, the problem is the politicians and the generals. The space industry is joined at the hip with the defense industry. That means most of the stuff falls under each countries national security interests.

Actually there is a lot of international work at the moment, there are plenty of companies and agencies working together from around the world (as can be seen with the whole NASA ESA deal. Unfortunately with stupid political regulations lite ITAR getting in the way you wont see anything like a Global space agency any time soon.