China and Russia to Launch Joint Mars Mission 182
The Interfacer writes "China and Russia are planning a joint mission to Mars that will bring back samples to earth and land on one of the red planet's tiny moons, state media quoted a Chinese scientist as saying Wednesday." From the article: "Russia will launch the spacecraft, while China will provide the survey equipment to carry out the unmanned exploration, Ye Peijian, a senior scientist at the Chinese Academy of Space Technology, told a meeting in Beijing, according to the official Xinhua news agency."
Oh dear. (Score:5, Funny)
Joking aside, this is interesting politically (Score:5, Insightful)
These days, you'd be hard pressed to call either country Communist. I think of both as sort of Wild-West capitalist societies. Now they seem to be forming an economic alliance against the other growing political powers - mostly Europe and the US. It's been interesting watching how similar their replies are in the current Iran negotiations.
I think they're both interested in developing their high tech sectors, and see it as a natural partnership. Russia has lots of experience, while China has a very well-developed industrial base.
Politically interesting in the US, too. (Score:2, Insightful)
We can't deny that the various religious fundamentalists are somewhat responsible. They have successfully lobbied the US government to reduce its financial support to NASA and other scientific bodies. They have even taken the "battle" to the classroom.
Unfortunately for all American citizens, this group of fundamentali
blame the fundies. load of crap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for stero typing. I'm a christian, probably not a fundamentalist, but a Bible belivin Christian. I have a college education in software engineering. Also, 3 of the Math professors, 2 engineering professors and a physics professor at my college were all christians. I would s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religious fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fund
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The arrogance and ignorance in that statement are stunning. Please read up on, oh, who's behind the separatist movement in Chechnya, as far as I know American fundamentalists haven't blown up subway stations or killed hundreds of hostages.
Re:Politically interesting in the US, too. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.asi.org/images/2003/NASA-budget-as-per
Lyndon B. Johnson (D): Huge increase, then a moderate decrease.
Richard Nixon (R): Large decrease
Jimmy Carter (D): Small decrease
Ronald Reagan (R): Small decrease
George Bush Sr. (R): Small increase
Bill Clinton (D): tiny decrease
George Bush Jr. (R): tiny decrease
Now, factor in the fact that Republicans are "all about" cutting government income and spending as a whole (whether or not they succeed), and you get that democrats are bigger supporters of NASA than Republicans. However, even with that, it's clearly not a very partisan issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately, that doesn't tell the entire story, either. Many of the technologies NASA uses have been getting cheaper in comparison (especially in the areas of computer and data recording) meaning that quite a few of their projects aren't as expensive as they once were. So looking at anything technology-related in comparison to overall spending is a bit misleading. Especially given that Congressional Pork has become
Re: (Score:2)
While the NASA was forced to focus on the manned Moon mission, the Soviets at the time devoted much less attention to the Moon and focused heavily on the planetary exploration. They gained a huge lead with their Venus [wikipedia.org] and Mars missions; the lead they still maintain to some extend.
So congressional pork issues aside, this PR-driven science funding is just not helpful.
The bigger question is why Russia
Re: (Score:2)
Here [wikipedia.org] is another graph showing the actual budget (instead of percentage of budget) in both "then years" and "constant 1996" dollars. Note that there are o
Re: (Score:2)
And here's the thing -- I'm not a religious fundie! Indeed I have very little in common with them. But I can recognize a convenient boogeyman/scapegoat when I see it. C
Like it or not.... (Score:3, Informative)
For your enjoyment:
NASA budgets since fiscal year 1992:
# 1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office;
# 1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget;
# 1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease;
# 1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase;
# 1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease;
# 1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease;
# 1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase;
# 2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease;
# 2001
Ok... (Score:2)
Besides, the President has just as much authority over the budget as the Congress. The budget starts at the Presidents desk and it ends up at the presidents desk. And if he doesn't like what the congress did with it during the interim, he doesn't have to sign it into law. I'm sure you remember the government shutdowns caused by Clintons refusal to accept the GOP budget drafts. The budget doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is up with all the trolling on "religeous fundamentalism" lately? I mean, space travel is about as far away as you can get from a hot-button issue for the religious conservatives! If anything, perhaps you should be congratulating our "fundie supporting president" for raising NASA's budget [whitehouse.gov] rather than reducing it like our previous bleeding heart liberal president [newsmax.com] did.
As far as I can figure it, the new troll is:
1. Claim that the "religious fundies" are responsibl
Re: (Score:2)
Get your facts straight (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3993857.st m [bbc.co.uk] [BBC]
"The situation is similar for Catholics. Of the estimated 15 to 20 million Catholics in China, less than half belong to state-approved churches, which put authority to Beijing before authority to Rome.
Those Christians who want to avoid the state-controlled religious movements meet in unofficial buildings or even each others' homes - hence their description as "house churches" - risking fines, imprisonment, tortur
Re: (Score:2)
However, you said that there isn't any religion in china. And you are wrong. It's as simple as that. And catholocism is one of the SMALLER religions in the country.
You're buying in to the "China is te devil" FUD and you're not willing to look at both sides of the coin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy writes "He's seen some western news coverage of religious persecution in China and has assumed that it's something that happens every day. Pure FUD"
Huh? I don't get it. Does the Chinese government restrict their religious persecution to Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? And if they do, does that make it OK?
And then "The Chineese gov't is not peaches and creme. But it's not the scorched earth hell that so many Americans believe." That's a
Re: (Score:2)
I'll tell you how it's informative. It informs people like yourself, who have never walked a foot on Chinese soil, that China is not nearly as repressive as most Americans--yourself included--believe. The fact that you've bought in so com
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all the US had to do that time was fund, organize and motivate one of the largest scientific and engineering undertakings in history. With the current climate in the states, I really have trouble trouble seeing even the motivat
Re: (Score:2)
How many failed missions is it now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China's GPS competition coming soon (Score:2)
See these two [slashgeo.org] stories [slashgeo.org] on China's Compass program. In short: China is launching a GPS competitor. Yes, in addition to GLONASS, GALILEO and GPS satellites. Oh, they're also interested in environmental remote sensing now [slashgeo.org]...
or is it civ4? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any space program is good news in my mind.
Why it makes me mad. (Score:3, Interesting)
China and Russia can be friends [heritage.org] or the "NATO of the East" or whatever you want to call it. But, to surpass your role in the ISS and instead strike up another work
Why not do it all? (Score:2)
Why can't Russia support the ISS and China's program? Unlike the US or Chinese space programs, Russia gets a lot of hard currency for its participation. They might even be making a profit here. Especially when you consider economies of scale, Russia may be *better* able to support the ISS due to its activity with China.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm suprised the Chinese didn't elect to use a Long March [wikipedia.org] rocket but it may not have quite the throw they need for the transfer stage. With a 2009 launch date, I'm assuming they are pretty far along in planning and buildin
Re: (Score:2)
From the article, all the Russians are supplying is the heavy lift vehicle and probably a earth-to-mars transfer stage. Sounds like a juicy launch contract for a Soyuz or Proton booster, but not much else. It is probably good for the old cash flow situation for the Russian Space Agency.
I guess I was mistaken about the size of the project. But it still sounds exactly like what Russia should be going for.Re: (Score:2)
That's an understatement. The current generation of Long March rockets have all the lift power of a Delta II rocket (one of the smaller rockets currently in production), despite having all the fanfare of the Saturn V. While China hopes to change that situation with the Long March 5, that rocket is still a ways in the future.
Until China develops a medium to heavy lift vehicle,
Re: (Score:2)
Until China develops a medium to heavy lift vehicle, they're going to need a third party rocket to attempt something as ambitious as a Mars mission. U.S. security restrictions make access to our rockets difficult, making Russia the next best choice. The fact that Russia sells their rocketry services on the cheap doesn't hurt either.
Russia might be the next best choice even if China could use US technology. Russia does have cheaper prices.Re: (Score:2)
TATO? Trans-Asia Treaty Organization. Though I don't think they'd directly use English for this, I don't know any Chinese or much Russian so I don't know what they'd call it if they did form such an organization.
It would be unfortunate to see ISS go by the wayside, but even with its origina schedule and current design, I'm not sure it was boing to be scientifically useful anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a good point, but I think the space.com article from 2001 was off the mark when it suggest the Russians may take away support from ISS for other programs.
I've worked extensively with the Russians on ISS and been to Moscow many, many times. Culturally, manned spaceflight is a big deal to the Russians, much more so than Americans (how many Americans even know
Re: (Score:2)
It remains to be seen if this is a real program, or just the latest in a series of press releases and power points, or the latest time a low-level Chinese space official voiced some wishful thinking that the mass media trumpeted as fact. (In fact the article clearly states, that this is sourced from a mid-level bureaucrat - not the Chinese goverment.)
As a side note: It's fascinating to watch the slashdot hivemind doublethink in these articles. The same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are two ways to throw rocks: slow and fast. If you are throwing slowly, that means you find a suitable asteroid and subtely alter its course so that it intersects Earth - specifically hitting your target country. First, lets point out that this is hard - you must apply huge forces for a long time very precisely. Second, by the time anyone is doing that it will be easy to look for large asteroids coming at u
Re: (Score:2)
But... but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1: Launch small rocks. These would not result in much more destruction than nuclear weapons, and would be much more expensive.
2: Launch big rocks. These would result in total destruction around the target area, and massive damage to the entire planet's ecosystem.
The first option would result in the nuclear-wielding nations responding in kind. The second option would result in societal collapse and probably nuclear war. I don't reall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they land on the moon?!?! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know maybe it has larger risks but COME ON, it's not like you go to Mars every week.
NEVER MIND - I RTFA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why would they land on the moon?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting on and off of a moon with a very low level of gravity is easier and cheaper than landing on something where you need to land and launch,while fighting the planets gravitational pull.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> I know maybe it has larger risks but COME ON, it's not like you go to Mars every week.
Russian scientists have been obsessed with Phobos for decades. There is a lot of science and discovery on that tiny moon, including samples of Mars (blown into space and swept onto Phobos) and other solar system bodies. Landing on Phobos is worlds easier than Mars itself, and there is an amount of preservation available
Oh, this can NOT be good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phobos and Demos are just S-type asteroids (Score:2)
Agreed. The proposed mission seems to be a replay of the ill-fated Phobos mission [russianspaceweb.com]. It is puzzling that the Russiams would want to conduct a sample return mission when an asteroid sample return mission would require less energy. Phobos and demos are likely captured S-type main belt asteroids. Why go to the trouble of going to Mars to sample them. Sampling a C or M type body would be a lot more interesting. As for China, they don't offer much except money I'd guess.
As for others on this forum denegrating th
China and Russia.. (Score:1, Funny)
Space Race?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Capricorn 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
60% Insightful
20% Flamebait
10% Troll
TrollMods think Bush will invade Mars for them, if only the antiscience liberals would get out of the way of their can-do Republican Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something more than mere political propaganda from the Chinese space program?
RFTA:
"In 2003, China became only the third country -- after the United States and Soviet Union -- to launch a man into space aboard its own rocket. In October 2005, it sent two men into orbit, and another manned orbit is slated for 2007."
[...]
"China expects to launch its firs
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the judges aren't going to give you that one. Sending a probe and sending a human are not even in the same ballpark. You're still comparing pine trees and volkswagons. But that's pretty typical of people who have nothing more interesting to say than some random criticism of President Bush.
The first American Astronaut traveled into space in 1961. How does the fact that China sent a man into space three years ago have any bearing on a pl
Re: (Score:2)
When China and Russia say they'll bring back Mars samples, which America hasn't done, there's reason to believe it. When Bush says we'll put Americans on Mars,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'm so tired of you liberals (Score:5, Informative)
Er, not exactly... http://www.factcheck.org/article148.html [factcheck.org]
/No, my scarcasm filter isn't broken, I just wanted to set the record straight on this particular issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I find this interesting because I have always assumed that the way to lower spending is to have Congress and the President in opposing parties - but the evidence does not seem to favor that.
Re: (Score:2)
In the future, you might want to link to pages that support your argument, not refute your argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow... you don't know how to interpret data from graphs do you? A superficial look at the graph shows huge deficits during the Bush I and Bush II administrations with surpluses during the Clinton administration. But that isn't the story - when did the changes occur? The upswing from deficit to surplus clearly began (from the same chart) smack in the middle of Bush Sr's admin, while the slip from surplus to deficit began in the later years of
am I the only one.... (Score:4, Interesting)
US mothballed half its space missions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US mothballed half its space missions (Score:5, Funny)
Why no intercontinental cooperation? (Score:5, Interesting)
If it's feasable that the US alone could go to mars, and that Russia and China together can go to mars - then could not all three work together to achieve this goal better?
Or is it neccessary to have the "us" and "them" philosophy when it comes to these kinds of projects?
Must there always be an adversary?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ths US has a massive deficit, and little actual interest in spaceflight. I have no doubt that NASA could get to Mars and back again, if they had both the budget and the full support of congress and the general public. But in the absence of either, there is little room for new spaceflight programs in their agenda. An
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
Number of space probes has the USA launched or operated at Mars in the 2000s: 5 (Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Odyssey, Spirit, Opportunity, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter)
Number for Russia: 0
Number for China: 0
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, the Russians launched several probes to Mars under the USSR, though they did have a high failure rate. So you're correct only in saying they haven't gone in this decade. Selecting your time period to exclude the earlier missions doesn't make much sense - it's like ignoring the Apollo program in the US because it happened thirty to forty years ago.
The US program isn't a major one at the moment. That could change, and if it does then either international competi
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it neccessary to have the "us" and "them" philosophy when it comes to these kinds of projects?
I think it's necessary to have competition. Plus, the record on international cooperation on large scale space projects isn't that great.
American are weenies and... (Score:2)
1) Americans have lower tolerances for dangerous situations; there is much less concern about the political fashions of "soccer moms" in countries where life is already cheap.
2) American space agencies can't do anything without checking with their defense contractors and their home states first to make sure the money will flow to political contributors and reliable voters.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The more countries the merrier, right? After all, that's done wonders for the on-budget, on-time, scientifically productive International Space Station.
(And yes, I am being sarcastic)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, would we even have a space station if it were not for the international cooperation?
Regardless of it's usefulness (which is, I admit, hard to disregard) it is a large accomplishment that it is even up there.
I wonder, is the space station the largest (read: most expensive) international scientific project? I think it's costs have quite dwarfed even the Large Hadron Collider [wikipedia.org].
Perhaps the ISS is a good example of how much can be accomplished through international cooperation
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the Russians managed to have a space station for several years without international cooperation.
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it neccessary to have the "us" and "them" philosophy when it comes to these kinds of projects?
Must there always be an adversary?
Yes, we are generally slow and stupid when we can get away with it. I bet you China/Russia would be 1/3 of the way to Mars before the US really makes a response, and then we'd try to one up them by rushing
ITAR (Score:2)
ITAR
Demand re-unification with renagade planet (Score:1, Funny)
Chinese should land on Mars. This way, hundred of years later, they can claim that Mars is "historically" Chinese terriroty, and setup intergalatic missles aiming at Mars to demand re-unification with the renagade RED planet.
Competition (Score:2, Interesting)
--
"I, for one, welcome our new unmanned red overlords"
Me too! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm planning a mission to Mars to be launched from my backyard in 2012.
*Anyone* can *plan* a mission.
real win for Russia, if it happens (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia really benefits, if this goes through. This sort of thing has the potential to guarantee substantial launch volume for them. Always a nice thing to have. And given China's economy, I suspect that China sooner or later will be paying most of the bills.
I find it interesting that China apparently is forgoing the launch vehicles. I think this is a big shift in the focus of their space program. Maybe from a strategic angle, they think that they can build up their launch systems later or maybe buy/steal the necessary technology from Russia.
Details on Russian Space Plans (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least they'll have somewhere to stay (Score:4, Funny)
Visiting Mars? Find Deals & Read Hotel Reviews!
Nothing like competition... (Score:3, Informative)
My very uninformed view of China's space program so far is that it's largely been purchased Russian technology with some in-house few updates. This makes sense for everyone, since Russia has been consistently launching rockets and orbiters for decades now, and China might as well take a little help to get some experience.
This time, from the article, it looks to like China will be doing the "interesting" science portion of this joint mission and Russia "just" does the pushing. Yes, others have built planetary landers before, but not so many that task is mature or easy.
So, this might be China's coming out party with respect to space research and technology. And then they'll shoot for the moon... (literally).
Except that the Russian record for landings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why Mars? (Score:5, Informative)
Venus has an extremely thick atmosphere, which consists mainly of carbon dioxide and a small amount of nitrogen. The pressure at the planet's surface is about 90 times that at Earth's surface--a pressure equivalent to that at a depth of 1 kilometer under Earth's oceans. The enormously CO2-rich atmosphere generates a strong greenhouse effect that raises the surface temperature to over 400 C." cite [wikipedia.org].
The next closest planets are Mercury and Jupiter, you wouldn't want to visit them either. Mercury is basically a semi-molten ball of rock, Jupiter is no treat with its high gravity, high winds, and very little (if any) crust. The planets don't get any better the further you get away from the sun. Basically, Mars is the only planet close enough and similiar enough to Earth to have any hope of visiting (and staying) for any useful amount of time.
Re: (Score:2)