manned Mission to Mars discussion

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by jefferiestubes8, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    30-month round trip
    28 November 2007
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7116834.stm

    http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/11/26/219877/nasa-manned-mars-mission-details-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
    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
    2007-2008 Field Season - Daily Reports & Photos
    http://desert.marssociety.org/mdrs/fs08/
     
  2. noknowes

    noknowes Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
     
  3. chardman

    chardman Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Location:
    The home of GenCon
    How so?
    What a silly statement. How can "what" be the point of anything?

    How so? Rockets have done the job adequately thus far.

    How so? In relation to what?

    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?
     
  4. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    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.
     
  5. Daedalus12

    Daedalus12 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Transatlantic Flights
    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.
     
  6. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    They can use concert speakers to block the radiation!
     
  7. FemurBone

    FemurBone Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Location:
    Up Yours
    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.
     
  8. SilentP

    SilentP Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
    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.
     
  9. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    New York City
    That is sort of the plan as of now from NASA.
    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
    . 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: Jun 23, 2009
  10. Daedalus12

    Daedalus12 Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2002
    Location:
    Transatlantic Flights
    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.
     
  11. jefferiestubes8

    jefferiestubes8 Commodore Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    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)
    NASA already trains underwater at
    photo:
    http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage...pace-Missions-in-Underwater-Laboratory-2.jpg/
    Astronauts Train for Space Missions in Underwater Laboratory
    18th of May 2007,
    http://news.softpedia.com/news/Astr...Missions-in-Underwater-Laboratory-55049.shtml
    as well as spacewalk work at Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) at J.S.Center.

     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2009
  12. noknowes

    noknowes Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    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.
     
  13. Mark de Vries

    Mark de Vries Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Location:
    Groningen, the Netherlands
    I'll just quote. No point in wasting extra words.

    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.
     
  14. noknowes

    noknowes Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    As I explained above Without the money and proper propulsion these will remain pipedreams.
     
  15. chardman

    chardman Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Location:
    The home of GenCon
    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?
    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?
     
  16. Bad Bishop

    Bad Bishop Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2001
    Location:
    The Land of Fruits and Nuts
    I have watched several episodes of Mars Rising on the Science Channel. The series makes it clear that a voyage to Mars would be too dangerous to the crew, given the current state of technology. Maybe the spacecraft could provide a kind of artificial gravity (by rotating part or all of the ship). Still, there would no way to provide protection for the crew against cosmic rays. Imagine all your astronauts returning home from Mars with the bones of 80-year olds plus cancer throughout their bodies.

    I would favor further R & D, but not committing to manned voyage to Mars for at least another 50 years. Why not just concentrate on exploring the moon for the next few decades?

    Incidentally, on the Fox News Channel today, Bill O'Reilly asked Rep. Barney Frank where the money for nationalized health care would come from. Frank suggested that he'd take money away from a manned Mars project (among other things like defense), though he does approve of unmanned space exploration. NASA, watch your wallet.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2009
  17. chardman

    chardman Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2001
    Location:
    The home of GenCon
    BB-

    Not sure how to address this. NASA obviously knows whether or not they have the means to deal with cosmic rays, and it's not been presented as a major stumbling block in any of their manned Mars proposals thus far, so I assume they have a workable solution in mind. I've certainly heard a number of workable solutions presented in the past, so don't think this is a problem. Still, I imagine it gets mentioned in a lot of science/educational shows, as shows of this sort often exaggerate the danger, as it makes for more exciting and memorable television. The Discovery Networks (of which The Science Channel is a part) are especially guilty of indulging in blatant sensationalism.

    And the gravity issue is pretty much moot as well, as you've presented the obvious solution (a centrifuge of some sort) in your post.

    The only stumbling block you've alluded to, which I believe has any real merit, is the political aspect of funding the mission.
     
  18. FemurBone

    FemurBone Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Location:
    Up Yours
    Christopher Columbus sailing across the Atlantic Ocean in a wooden sailing ship with no radio, electricity or GPS was far more dangerous than a manned mission to Mars would be.

    As far as the effects of weightlessness on bones is concerned, Russian Cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov spent 14 months aboard the Mir space station and his bones are fine.

    and I also believe this cosmic ray buisness is over exagerated.
     
  19. noknowes

    noknowes Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2009
    The figure for 2 trillion is correct.Have you heard of cost over runs?

    Just about EVERY single HIGH PRESTIGE project has always had cost over runs.Just look at the International Space Station cost over runs.

    The cost over run were phenomenal.

    By the time this project gets of the ground,which i seriously doubt,the cost will be conservatively at least 2 trillion.

    Lower costs are being quoted to get funding then of course once it gets under way the price will skyrocket.

    No politician in his right mind is going to vote for a $2 trillion Mars mission.

    IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME LOOK AT ALL THE PREVIOUS HIGH PRESTIGE PROJECTS.


    Find out the estimated quoted figures at the start and actual cost at the end.
     
  20. SilentP

    SilentP Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
    Yes, people know of cost over runs, however, just a blanket statement of 2 trillion being the end correct cost isn't viable, since nothing has been attempted at all. Would you like to show how you got to a figure of 2 trillion? Calculations with sources, please.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2009