RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,585
Posts: 5,515,283
Members: 25,156
Currently online: 502
Newest member: jerrlaro

TrekToday headlines

Two New Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Dec 26

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 22 2009, 08:31 PM   #1
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
manned Mission to Mars discussion

The cargo lander and surface habitat would be sent to Mars separately, launched before the crew in December 2028 and January 2029.
February 2031, the mission's journey from Earth to Mars would take six to seven months in a spacecraft.
...astronauts could spend up to 16 months on the Martian surface
30-month round trip
28 November 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7116834.stm

A second mission's habitat and lander will be launched by two Ares Vs in late 2030/early 2031 to reach Mars at the same time as the first crew. In the first quarter of 2033, the second mission's crew will leave Earth to arrive at Mars by December, while the first crew leaves Mars in January 2033 after a 17-month stay, to reach Earth by September
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ls-emerge.html

That is the plan so far.
What do you guys think about Nasa's 30-month mission plan? and second mission 2 years later?



Prep work:
Title: Project M—a study for a manned Mars mission in 2031
a manned mission which focuses on building an orbital station around Mars. The advantages in comparison to direct-landing scenarios are outlined and the necessary technology is described. The orbiting station prohibits contamination of and from the Red Planet and houses six astronauts in a 1100 days journey to Mars providing three pressurized modules: two of them will remain in a Low Mars Orbit for further human missions while the third module is used as an Earth Return Vehicle.
Publication:Acta Astronautica, Volume 58, Issue 2, p. 88-104.
Publication Date:1/2006
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AcAau..58...88T


Spaceward Bound Expeditions are ongoing in places like Arctic Canada, North Dakota, Utah, Austrailia
Mars Desert Research Station
Each Station's centerpiece is a cylindrical habitat, "The Hab," an 8-meter diameter, two-deck structure mounted on landing struts. Peripheral external structures, some inflatable, may be appended to the Hab as well.
Mars Analog Research Stations are laboratories for learning how to live and work on another planet. Each is a prototype of a habitat that will land humans on Mars and serve as their main base for months of exploration
2007-2008 Field Season - Daily Reports & Photos
http://desert.marssociety.org/mdrs/fs08/
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2009, 11:36 PM   #2
noknowes
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

[QUOTE=jefferiestubes8;3111860]
The cargo lander and surface habitat would be sent to Mars separately, launched before the crew in December 2028 and January 2029.
February 2031, the mission's journey from Earth to Mars would take six to seven months in a spacecraft.

http://desert.marssociety.org/mdrs/fs08/
A waste of money going to mars.what is the point.

unless someone invents a decent method of propulsion.

nasa has not advanced one iota.

it is run by conservatives.
noknowes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 12:11 AM   #3
chardman
Vice Admiral
 
chardman's Avatar
 
Location: The home of GenCon
View chardman's Twitter Profile
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

noknowes wrote: View Post
A waste of money going to mars.
How so?
what is the point.
What a silly statement. How can "what" be the point of anything?

unless someone invents a decent method of propulsion.
How so? Rockets have done the job adequately thus far.

nasa has not advanced one iota.
How so? In relation to what?

it is run by conservatives.
Strange, 'cause it's currently run by an administration that many conservatives decry as the most liberal in American history. So again I must ask; how so?
__________________
If Ronald Reagan hadn't cut Mental Health funding to the bone, most of today's GOP & Tea Party candidates wouldn't be walking around loose.
chardman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 12:28 AM   #4
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
manned Mission to Mars discussion

noknowes wrote: View Post
A waste of money going to mars.what is the point.
noknowes if you have nothing to add to the topic then please do not respond. This is a topic about a planned mission, not about the politics involved with funding space exploration.
We know the mission date may change and I specifically left out any dollar figures as we know those change on a project like this.

Back on topic, a 30-month mission being 2 1/2 years is a long time and that means a number of redundant systems in case of failure.
From disaster scenarios of 2000 mars mission films like Mission to Mars, Red Planet
There are a number of issues with a major 4 year 2-mission interplanetary project.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 03:35 AM   #5
Daedalus12
Rear Admiral
 
Daedalus12's Avatar
 
Location: South West France!
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

The biggest obstacle that needs to be resolved for any potention mission.

1. A demonstrated technology that solves the radiation exposure problem. Right now the estimated risk is just too high i.e. a trip to the Mars would kill potential astronaut prematurely. One of the Apollo missions missed a deadly solar storm by only few days. NASA will not go the route of waiver agreements.
__________________
"Bennett & Meyer are obviously the Ceti Eels introduced into the collective brain of Trekdom, leading to easy manipulation (TWOK), impaired cognitive functionality (TSFS), drooling (TVH), agonized death (TFF) and extended post-mortem twitching (TUC).
Daedalus12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 05:10 AM   #6
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

They can use concert speakers to block the radiation!
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 09:12 AM   #7
FemurBone
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Up Yours
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

Daedalus12 wrote: View Post
The biggest obstacle that needs to be resolved for any potention mission.

1. A demonstrated technology that solves the radiation exposure problem. Right now the estimated risk is just too high i.e. a trip to the Mars would kill potential astronaut prematurely. One of the Apollo missions missed a deadly solar storm by only few days. NASA will not go the route of waiver agreements.
Radiation exposure is the modern day sea monsters. A lot of nonsense. Sure there's radiation in space but its a minor engineering and/or medical issue. Besides, space travel is dangerous; that's just the way it is and always will be. An astronaut could just as easily die in a car wreck.

The biggest obstacle that needs to be resolved for any potention mission is fear.
__________________
Shaky Camera SUCKS!!!
FemurBone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 09:28 AM   #8
SilentP
Commodore
 
SilentP's Avatar
 
Location: is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to SilentP
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

On the topic of redundant systems, would it be possible to send a robotic proto-pre base to Mars? Basically a very large scale probe that would land on the surfact where the base is projected to be, with large amounts of spare parts and consumables?

Whether or not the inhabited section actually lands directly on top of the pre-base, but if it could dock easily enough with it, it could lend a lot of resource security for any astronauts living there. Plus with the head start the base would have over the astronauts could give a lot of time for readings of the area to be taken to help with any operating limits that might need investigating would be helpful.
SilentP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 12:53 PM   #9
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
manned Mission to Mars discussion

SilentP wrote: View Post
On the topic of redundant systems, would it be possible to send a robotic proto-pre base to Mars? Basically a very large scale probe that would land on the surfact where the base is projected to be, with large amounts of spare parts and consumables?
That is sort of the plan as of now from NASA.
The cargo lander and surface habitat would be sent to Mars separately, launched before the crew in December 2028 and January 2029.
Actually in the 2000 film Red Planet that is what they did. The surface habitat though was destroyed before the astronauts arrival.
Due to the storms on the planet that is a real concern.
The extra cost of robots would be a good idea though so they could survey the actual area around the landing site after landing, a year before the humans arrive.
The study Project M above mentions an orbital station around Mars with
three pressurized modules: two of them will remain in a Low Mars Orbit for further human missions while the third module is used as an Earth Return Vehicle
. seems right on as it would be a lot less stuff to send at once with the mission. Extra fuel, oxygen, food, spacesuits, water could be sent as well in advance during an unmanned mission.
I can forsee the redundant systems being added to an orbital station long before a manned mission down to the planet itself.
Yes it would be a huge letdown but I think we will see astronauts travel that far to orbit the planet as the first part of 2 or 3 missions all planned together.

As far as training it is possible that NASA will send the actual crew to both
Mars Desert Research Station [MDRS] and Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station [FMARS] for 2 weeks to 1 month at each station during the winter but using real spacesuits for all exterior activities to simulate Mars
NASA may even build a pressurized replica of the actual HAB to be used on Mars at the MDRS and FMARS sites and/or at Johnson Space Center
All Mars-mission astronauts would train there before going to an extended period at a desert or arctic research station location to simulate psychological isolation.

Last edited by jefferiestubes8; June 23 2009 at 01:06 PM.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 02:47 PM   #10
Daedalus12
Rear Admiral
 
Daedalus12's Avatar
 
Location: South West France!
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

FemurBone wrote: View Post
Daedalus12 wrote: View Post
The biggest obstacle that needs to be resolved for any potention mission.

1. A demonstrated technology that solves the radiation exposure problem. Right now the estimated risk is just too high i.e. a trip to the Mars would kill potential astronaut prematurely. One of the Apollo missions missed a deadly solar storm by only few days. NASA will not go the route of waiver agreements.
Radiation exposure is the modern day sea monsters. A lot of nonsense. Sure there's radiation in space but its a minor engineering and/or medical issue. Besides, space travel is dangerous; that's just the way it is and always will be. An astronaut could just as easily die in a car wreck.

The biggest obstacle that needs to be resolved for any potention mission is fear.
Well now you are just talking out of your arse. Fear is not an issue since there are about thousands of qualified people willing to volunteer for an one-way trip but as I said before we are not going to go that route. If we are going to do this we are going to do it properly and with the minimization of risk. Otherwise you get something that blows up completely in your face. The radiation issue isn't comparable to some modern day sea monster. It's real and it's not a minor engineering issue. Most people who are heavily involved in the manned mission area here at NASA Langley agree that it's at least one of the biggest obstacles. Of course all the other details that are currently being discussed by others in this thread like In-Situ utilization are also challenging engineering problems but I rate them as something that is more tractable.
__________________
"Bennett & Meyer are obviously the Ceti Eels introduced into the collective brain of Trekdom, leading to easy manipulation (TWOK), impaired cognitive functionality (TSFS), drooling (TVH), agonized death (TFF) and extended post-mortem twitching (TUC).
Daedalus12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 23 2009, 03:12 PM   #11
jefferiestubes8
Commodore
 
Location: New York City
training for interplanetary mission

I wonder if NASA would build a pressurized replica of the actual HAB to be used on Mars at Johnson Space Center and put it completely underwater like the "Deepcore" underwater oil platform in the film The Abyss (1989)
a half-completed nuclear reactor facility in Gaffney, South Carolina, ...a depth of 40 feet
NASA already trains underwater at
Aquarius Underwater Laboratory, part of NASA's Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) program
Located 18 meters (6 feet) under the surface
or a period of 12 days.
The lab itself is a coral-encrusted cylinder that looks a lot like a yellow submarine, located 5.5 kilometers (3.4 miles) off Florida's Key Largo and it's the only underwater laboratory in the world, as close as NASA could get to replicating space conditions.
photo:
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/...oratory-2.jpg/
Astronauts Train for Space Missions in Underwater Laboratory
18th of May 2007,
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Astro...ry-55049.shtml
as well as spacewalk work at Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) at J.S.Center.


Last edited by jefferiestubes8; June 23 2009 at 03:25 PM.
jefferiestubes8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2009, 12:56 PM   #12
noknowes
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
noknowes wrote: View Post
A waste of money going to mars.what is the point.
noknowes if you have nothing to add to the topic then please do not respond. This is a topic about a planned mission, not about the politics involved with funding space exploration.
We know the mission date may change and I specifically left out any dollar figures as we know those change on a project like this.

Back on topic, a 30-month mission being 2 1/2 years is a long time and that means a number of redundant systems in case of failure.
From disaster scenarios of 2000 mars mission films like Mission to Mars, Red Planet
There are a number of issues with a major 4 year 2-mission interplanetary project.
Exactly my point.THE COST WILL BE FANTASTIC.w are bankrupt already thanks to the greedy bankers.may they get just their deserts soon.

i curse them all to die a slow,horrible death for the massive misery they have caused to everyone.

no one in the current economic climate is going to fund a mars mission.it is absolutely no ,no and no.

the cost will exceed 2 trillion dollars.

chemical costs are expensive,ugly and have very poor load.2% load.the rest is fuel!

this makes them very expensive for mars.

nasa is run by conservatives who have failed over the last 50 years to develop any alternatives to chemical rockets with better load factors.

some say nasa is bound by its managers not to develop alternatives as the contractors have promised them jobs once they jump ship keeping the contractors pockets lined with rocket orders.this is called corruption.
noknowes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2009, 01:53 PM   #13
Mark de Vries
Commodore
 
Mark de Vries's Avatar
 
Location: Groningen, the Netherlands
View Mark de Vries's Twitter Profile
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

I'll just quote. No point in wasting extra words.

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
noknowes if you have nothing to add to the topic then please do not respond. This is a topic about a planned mission, not about the politics involved with funding space exploration.
Back on topic: the plan sounds at the very least intriguing and, from my own very limited knowledge, the logical option. There's no space race like in the 60s, so why rush it and get there in a decade? instead, focus on building an infrastructure like we have done in the past decades in low Earth orbit.
Mark de Vries is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2009, 12:09 AM   #14
noknowes
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

Mark de Vries wrote: View Post
I'll just quote. No point in wasting extra words.

jefferiestubes8 wrote: View Post
noknowes if you have nothing to add to the topic then please do not respond. This is a topic about a planned mission, not about the politics involved with funding space exploration.
Back on topic: the plan sounds at the very least intriguing and, from my own very limited knowledge, the logical option. There's no space race like in the 60s, so why rush it and get there in a decade? instead, focus on building an infrastructure like we have done in the past decades in low Earth orbit.
As I explained above Without the money and proper propulsion these will remain pipedreams.
noknowes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 25 2009, 01:16 AM   #15
chardman
Vice Admiral
 
chardman's Avatar
 
Location: The home of GenCon
View chardman's Twitter Profile
Re: manned Mission to Mars discussion

noknowes wrote:
the cost will exceed 2 trillion dollars.
So, what's your source for this? Cause thus far, the largest NASA estimate I've seen has been about $450bn, and that's for one of their most ambitious manned mission proposals. They have others mission plans which are far more modest and economical. So, again, link?
noknowes wrote:
As I explained above Without the money and proper propulsion these will remain pipedreams.
Again, I'll need some reliable evidence of the totally outrageous figure you've mentioned, but as far as propulsion systems go: The technology we have is proper. Sure, it would be great if someone invented the mythical "space drive", but it hardly makes sense to delay in anticipation of a technology that might not emerge for centuries, if ever. That's the pipe dream.

Thankfully, waiting for a quantum leap in propulsion isn't at all necessary, as the consensus among experts in the aerospace industry is that standard chemical rockets that we are building now are perfectly adequate for the job.

So, please explain why should we listen to you when the experts almost universally disagree with you?
__________________
If Ronald Reagan hadn't cut Mental Health funding to the bone, most of today's GOP & Tea Party candidates wouldn't be walking around loose.
chardman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.