It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Russia and the US aim at Mars!

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:25 PM

The leading space powers are seriously considering flying to Mars. In late 2011 the Russian Fobos-Grunt apparatus will start to Fobos – Mars’s natural satellite - to come back with samples of its soil. Late this April, Moscow will start an experiment imitating the conditions of a real flight to Mars. The US also plans flying to the Red Planet, confirmed President Obama recently, specifying the new US priorities in space exploration. In the 2020ies, Americans will fly to one of the asteroids and in mid 2030ies – to Mars.

It’s all about high politics, Igor Afanasyev says. The US space department was very unhappy with the President’s plans to wind up these space programs. Mr. Obama is just being pressed on. He must have been convinced that such plans throw America’s space progress years back.

Russia and the US have many common points in space exploration. Americans use Russian RD-180 liquid engines that are considered to be the world’s best, on their rockets. They are also interested in Russian advanced oxygen and hydrogen engines.

Source: (very telling article)

While looking around, I noticed some other articles about Russia and them prepping for a trip and landing on Mars. Noted here:


Russia selecting crew for mock Mars flight

Seven Russians, a Chinese, an Italian, a Belgian and a man from France have entered the final stage of a Russian contest to put together a crew for a mock manned mission to Mars



Scientists launch mock expedition to Mars

Russian and European scientists are locking a team of enthusiasts in a module to find out if an expedition to Mars can become a reality. The volunteers are to spend 520 days in compete isolation.

Source w/ video:

ATS member bodrul made this posting about Russia & China from 2007: the two of them getting together-based on an official announcement:

That is what I am questioning. How many deals/contract does Russia got going. Does NASA know and agree to them? Do they benefit our interest also?

One thing for sure, it seems like there is a desire to get to Mars on a global scale and fast.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:32 PM
Absolutely bloody fantastic news in my honest opinion.

Since i wasn't even born back in the 60's, i missed out on the Apollo missions.
This is some brilliant news.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:33 PM
This could be the next Space race.

Have both sides try to out do each other in terms of technology.

If they both work together maybe we will walk on mars before WWIII.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:44 PM

Originally posted by areyosicker
This could be the next Space race.

Have both sides try to out do each other in terms of technology.

If they both work together maybe we will walk on mars before WWIII.

Haha, I like your last line. Anyway, this could very well prompt another leap in technology. It's unfortunate that we have become complacent with the current situation surrounding NASA and space exploration in general. I'll be waiting for more concrete deadlines and announcements about how the mission will be handled but this is a step in the right direction. The television broadcast of the first manned mission to Mars would be incredible.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
Russia's liquid propulsion, huh, whatever happened to the Photon Propulsion that Von Daniken said would bring us to near the speed of light back in the 70'

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:51 PM
It would be nice if there was a nation left on the planet that was not entirely motivated by greed. Then we could go to Mars just for the adventure of it. Adventure does not inspire any nation. If we go there it will be to get some resource we need, or produce some spin-offs for sale.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 03:54 PM
reply to post by earthdude

that is about the most common sense I think I have heard all day about going into Space etc. It should be about Mankind and not $$$.

Be sure to S&F to keep interest in this thread going. I think it is important. If you like it etc. do it baby....

I'm glad there are others that are excited about this.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:29 PM
I really hope this is true, but I fear it isn't. I know for a fact that this statement if blown out of porportion

The US also plans flying to the Red Planet, confirmed President Obama recently, specifying the new US priorities in space exploration

All Obama did was say he thinks he would see a Mars missionin his lifetime, no more, all the while dis-manteling NASA's budget.

I authored a couple of threads on the topic
Watch Obama address NASA LIVE about its future. Mars?
Will Obama announce a Mars mission April 15th?

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:32 PM
The truth is no one country can afford to
do this by themselves. I did not know the
Russians were that far advanced in engine

With the Shuttle fleet being dropped how
much scientific testing can be done on a
Soyez. There is an ex astronaut by the name
of Chang-Diaz who was developing a Magneto-
Plasma engine that was supposed to be ten
times more powerful than what is used now.
NASA was supposed to send it up next year
for testing. Does anyone know if it has been
moved up?

I don't believe it could be tested in the ISS
but I cannot imagine it being tested in a space
capsule which is what the Soyez is. They could
have tested it in the shuttle.

None of this makes sense to me.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by capgrup

Obama did say there would be an emphasis on proplusion, but I have lost all faith in him so take it for what you will.


posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 04:40 PM
If true, I applaud this. I certainly don't want to wait until 2035 for the US to send a ship to orbit Mars. I think we, the human race, should be on martian soil before that date.

Now, I agree with the assertion that we need to develop the technology to do it before we can, but that development should be more aggressive.

If Russia, China, etc. get there first....I really don't care. I would love for the US to get there first, the achievement is more important that who does it.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 05:57 PM
reply to post by MysterE

I was thinking like you and then I came across the Russia Space agencies Space Planning announcement. They have it lined up until like 2050.

I posted one part of it the other day, in response to an Obama/NASA statement but basically, the US & Russia have missions (both manned and unmanned sats/probe) planned for Mars for 2031 (on paper). Obama was forced to keep open the one program.

Heck even the Russians stated if Obama did what he wanted to do it would set things back for years.

I will get that stuff on here soon. Not done pouring over it.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:10 PM
This just in!

The U.S. and Russia have just joined forces to aim a rocket at Mars. The rocket, unfortunately landed in an old chemical factory in New Jersey. it is estimated that over $18 million worth of improvements resulted from the explosion.

All kidding aside. It is no longer feasible for one nation to "go it alone" on a project of this type. it should be a unifying force for the people of the entire world to accomplish such a lofty goal.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:26 PM
I really think we have been there and done that. Were just not talking about it.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by anon72

First I think working together with the Russians and other space capable nations just makes a hell of a lot of sense. More on that in a moment. But it makes much more sense to get back to and stay on the moon as a precurser to any human expansion we may want to proceed with into the solar system. We know the moon contains the raw materials we must have to sustain us in any sustained effort to leave Earth, and not have to phone home for take out. My God, theres even water in the form of ice in polar craters! (The only thing it dosen't seem to have is a wine cellar...)

When humans colonized remote areas of Earth, they diden't go from A to Z with out stopping. They got there in stages. I know were not talking about a wagon train here, but the logic remains the same. Obama stated when asked why not go back to the moon, he said because we had been there. With respect Mr. President, wrong answer. The moon is also where the gas station is. And it takes a whole lot less energy to go from the moon to anywhere else, then it does to go from Earth to anywhere else.

I would invite the Russians to join us in colonizing the moon, and having equal access to any resources they help discover and develope. I would invite those nations with space programs that have the capacity to join us. They would have to have the technology, industrial infrastructure, and money to cover what ever part of the program they participated in. The President did mention a new direction in space access I agree with a 110%. He wants to have private enterprise provide more of the systems and menthods that provide transportation to space. As opposed to acting only as the private contractors to build the space craft, with NASA owning and opperating them. It may a subtle difference, but I think the change in logistics makes a lot of sense.

I think its a bad idea not have peoplel in space (that we actually get there ourselves and back, and don't have to hitch a ride) untill 2030. Would you want a brain surgeon who hasen't cut anyone open in 20 years?. Interestingly the President did propose to send a manned mission to an asteroid, perhaps within 10 years. Of course we DO need to understand what different asteroids are made of and how they behave in case one decides to say drop on Denver. And while I do think boots on the ground, or where ever, are almost always better then robots for exploration. I look at a human going to an asteroid from a pretty basic point of view. Aside fom the scientific data, are there any raw materials I can use if I have to? (Like in getting home)

I know different asteroids have different compositions. I know the moon has certain materials when processed that can keep me alive. I don't know if a given asteroid does. If you've ever been scuba diving and run out of air, you'll know why I happened to think of this. But more importantly the orbital mechanics of getting to and from the moon are well understood. But from what I recall all asteroids I've seen (on TV) seem to tumble around an axis very quickly. I know will try to chose some thing as sedate as possible, but it's something I wanted to mention.

Last, back to Mars, any nation that participates in getting to Mars or back to the Moon will have the potential to benifit from technological advances and employment increases. One exciting possibility is the development over the last 15ys by NASA's advanced propulsion group (which by the way was shut down for a few years) of whats called the radio frequency magneto-hydro-dynamic plasma drive. It can get to Mars in 39 days intead of 6 months. Very sexy stuff. More on that later. I'm getting writers cramp for which I know your greatfull.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 07:06 PM
Excellent points, Arb.

The moon is very "doable" with current and near-future technology. Do that first. This will set the stage for the next step. Besides, why did new colonies spring up? Because the first to utilize the resources of new locations made a potful of money. The same will soon be true for the moon.

Mars, that's a stickier wicket.

posted on Apr, 20 2010 @ 08:24 PM
reply to post by Truth1000

Thats what Im saying. Why not develope the moon first. Base, telescopes, etc. Then move on.

What is it with the "Been there, Done That" attitude? No wonder people think there is more to the whole: We haven't and aren't going back mood they (NASA) seem to be in.

Thats okay, Japan, India, the UK, Russia they can all tell us about it. One big happy Spacey Family, right?

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 09:02 PM
It's all just a bunch of talk. How many times have there been simulated Mars expeditions in the arctic? Lots. The Russians have been saying they will go to Mars for at least a decade, and prbably longer, but I've never heard them give a firm date, or demonstrate actual tech that will be used on the mission. Same with the US. We talk about going to Mars ever since we went to the Moon. The first Bush put out a poster of American astronauts climbing a Martian cliff and discovering ancient ruins of humanoid rock statues. Serioulsy. Constellations goal was to "build the vehicles needed to take us back to the Moon and on to Mars"

Part of me feels that this is really beginning to happen, but a bigger part of me says I've heard it all before. The boy who cried wolf.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 05:44 AM

Originally posted by arbiture
reply to post by anon72

The moon is also where the gas station is. And it takes a whole lot less energy to go from the moon to anywhere else, then it does to go from Earth to anywhere else.

It is less efficient to stop at the moon before going on to the destination.

It makes more sense to build a heavy lift booster and send it direct, without orbital or lunar refuelling.

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:20 AM
Forget the rockets! If you want 'heavy lift' and to get to Mars, then develop true anti-gravity propulsion - like a 'serious' space program should.

"Welcome to Mars express: only a three hour trip"

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in