Chinese first to land on Mars?

icytailmark (Mark) · #1 29-09-2011, 10:04 AM

The shift of economy from West to East, will the China be the first to land on Mars??? I think they will be the first to land on Mars because I dont see America being able to afford to do it.

supernova1965 (Warren) · #2 29-09-2011, 10:09 AM

That's fine by me as long as we as a species do it. To me countries are where we all have our houses but the Planet Earth is our home and we are all neighbours and should have patriotism for our planet atleast until we join the United Federation of Planets.

astroron (Ron) · #3 29-09-2011, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icytailmark

The shift of economy from West to East, will the China be the first to land on Mars??? I think they will be the first to land on Mars because I dont see America being able to afford to do it.

Could we see a combined effort to land on mars in the future as I don't see that any country can really afford to go it alone

I have seen various guestimates from Forty Billion upto one forty Billion dollars so it would make sense to combine all our resources rather than just one country.
Cheers

supernova1965 (Warren) · #4 29-09-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

Could we see a combined effort to land on mars in the future as I don't see that any country can really afford to go it alone

I have seen various guestimates from Forty Billion upto one forty Billion dollars so it would make sence to combine all our rescourses rather than just one country.
Cheers

+1 from me on that idea Ron

Poita (Peter) · #5 29-09-2011, 10:28 AM

Ah, that is only two years air-conditioning bill..

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414...r-conditioning

To be fair, a more sensible article is here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/...llars-per-day/

But either way, $40 billion could be afforded by the US if they had the will, and decided to cut 'defense' spending, but I don't think either will happen.
A chinese funded, global solution would be marvellous.

icytailmark (Mark) · #6 29-09-2011, 10:30 AM

i personally would love to see an aussie astronaut on the Mars team!!

icytailmark (Mark) · #7 29-09-2011, 10:37 AM

no wonder the al qaeda hate america so much the soliders get Air Con!!!!!

Paul Haese · #8 29-09-2011, 11:24 AM

Just to get there is going to cost a fortune. The "space ship" needs to have a habitat area which would be in my opinion need to be twice the size of an average house. That is so the crew don't kill each other and so they can exercise. The idea of putting them in a tin can for 6 months is well at best stupid and at worst a disaster. Step on to Mars and fracture a hip.

So with that sized habitat, it will need something around half a kilometer long for life support systems and propulsion. Water recycling, air and CO2 creation and cleansing. Something to create a magnetic field to protect the astronauts they don't die of radiation poisoning on the way there or the way back.

That means 40 billion is just a start. This is going to require many nations getting this together and then it just might succeed. It will not happen in our life time. The economics, the political will and the fight for oil is just part of the reasons why it will not happen. Going to the moon is one thing, just think about travelling in space and being separated from home for at least 18 months, maybe 2.5 years. That makes a week seem like childs play.

Ric · #9 29-09-2011, 11:51 AM

If they were to invest that $40 billion and expand/upgrade the ISS and give it a propulsion system that might be a better way to go.

They are going to deorbit it at some point in time so we might as well get our moneys worth out of it.

ZeroID (Brent) · #10 29-09-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ric

If they were to invest that $40 billion and expand/upgrade the ISS and give it a propulsion system that might be a better way to go.

They are going to deorbit it at some point in time so we might as well get our moneys worth out of it.

I don't think that thing is designed to take large amounts of thrust and speed and it needs regular refueling and restocking. Also it has no real radiation sheilding being as it spends all it's time inside the Van Alen belts away from the worst of the storm.

Poita (Peter) · #11 29-09-2011, 12:48 PM

They could exercise in a pretty small area, but the psychological strain of a journey of that duration would be extreme.
How big was the space in the Mars500 experiment where they locked people away for the duration?
They should be 'landing' back on earth in November from memory, or has it fallen over?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Just to get there is going to cost a fortune. The "space ship" needs to have a habitat area which would be in my opinion need to be twice the size of an average house. That is so the crew don't kill each other and so they can exercise. The idea of putting them in a tin can for 6 months is well at best stupid and at worst a disaster. Step on to Mars and fracture a hip.

So with that sized habitat, it will need something around half a kilometer long for life support systems and propulsion. Water recycling, air and CO2 creation and cleansing. Something to create a magnetic field to protect the astronauts they don't die of radiation poisoning on the way there or the way back.

That means 40 billion is just a start. This is going to require many nations getting this together and then it just might succeed. It will not happen in our life time. The economics, the political will and the fight for oil is just part of the reasons why it will not happen. Going to the moon is one thing, just think about travelling in space and being separated from home for at least 18 months, maybe 2.5 years. That makes a week seem like childs play.

Poita (Peter) · #12 29-09-2011, 12:51 PM

Ah, found it here:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Mars500/index.html

Sardukar (Tim) · #13 29-09-2011, 12:54 PM

The USA can actually easilly afford to go to mars, to bad they don't want to have anything to do with putting humans in space and are letting the private sector take care of that.

However if a country like China showed serious interest in a mars mission, that might just get the yanks to pull the finger out.

PCH (Paul) · #14 29-09-2011, 01:30 PM

Hmmm.. nice idea Ron,

but if I'm not mistaken, don't most of us have less than nothing in the pot to contribute with at this point in time? Certainly I can't see the Europeans contributing much to such a scheme as they're all busy scrambling for the last loaf of bread to come off the press. Uncle Sam is not much better.

China, Russia, Germany and possibly India are the only ones left on the planet with any money. And I don't see that changing any time soon unfortunately.

Just my 2c

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

Could we see a combined effort to land on mars in the future as I don't see that any country can really afford to go it alone

I have seen various guestimates from Forty Billion upto one forty Billion dollars so it would make sence to combine all our rescourses rather than just one country.
Cheers

traveller (Bo) · #15 29-09-2011, 01:30 PM

Interesting discussion so far. The ISS is not built for space missions, so it's out of the question. In anycase, the cost of upgrading it to an interplanetary vehicle will be more than building a dedicated one.
It will take an international effort, I think even the Chinese will acknowledge that, given the cost, technological know how, etc.
The real issue is where to start: earth or in space.
IMHO, to take off from earth will be too costly. The ISS COULD be upgraded to an "assembly factory" to build the interplanetary vehicle. The other option is to use the moon as a space port or assembly factory. But one needs to explore the moon fully to see which is a more suitable option. Eitherway, space launch is a cheaper option than an earth launch.
The logistics of that will be HUGE, hence the international efforts required etc. Then one has to consider the return journey (unless we build colony ships with one way tickets for the astros...).
2050 will be the earliest something will take place, that's my (un)educated guess.

Bo

TrevorW · #16 29-09-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Going to the moon is one thing, just think about travelling in space and being separated from home for at least 18 months, maybe 2.5 years. That makes a week seem like childs play.

proposed and possible propulsion systems would reduce travel time too six months or less

wavelandscott (Scott) · #17 29-09-2011, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sardukar

The USA can actually easilly afford to go to mars, to bad they don't want to have anything to do with putting humans in space and are letting the private sector take care of that.

However if a country like China showed serious interest in a mars mission, that might just get the yanks to pull the finger out.

I reckon this is right, if some country announces they are going to try that will get the money flowing just like the race to the moon during the cold war

tlgerdes (Trevor) · #18 29-09-2011, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

I have seen various guestimates from Forty Billion upto one forty Billion dollars so it would make sence to combine all our rescourses rather than just one country.
Cheers

Well, our goverment has spent more than that propping up our local economy over the last 3 years, maybe we should have bankrolled the project.

traveller (Bo) · #19 30-09-2011, 11:13 AM

On a related issue, the first Chinese space station module just blasted off http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-n...930-1kzxj.html

TrevorW · #20 30-09-2011, 04:57 PM

This may be setting the ground

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...space-station/