I say forget the moon and go straight to Mars.

[FemurBone]

and here's how it can possibly be done.

To start off you will need 4 Ares V rockets.

The first launch will put a 2 module space craft in Low Earth Orbit. A command module and a habitat module. The space craft will carry a crew of 3.

The Second and third launches will put a 3 stage engine in LEO.

The fourth launch will put a 2 stage Mars lander in LEO along with a booster to push it out of LEO.

The space craft will use the first stage of its engine to leave Earth Orbit. The first stage will then be Jettisoned. The Mars Lander will use its booster to leave Earth orbit. Afterwards the booster will be jettisoned. The 2 spacecraft will join enroute to Mars.

Solar panels will provide electricity. Water will be recycled through distillation, and some of the oxygen will be extracted from the carbon dioxide the astronauts breathe out. Lead plated radiation suits will protected against solar flares. The astronauts regular clothes will also provide some radiation protection.

When the spacecraft reaches Mars in 6 months, 2 of the astronauts will climb into the Mars Lander. The lander craft will then detached and continue on towards Mars. The main space craft will then use its second stage to perform an orbital insertion burn. The second stage will then be jettisoned.

The Mars lander will fly into the atmosphere using a heat shield. When the Lander has slowed enough, the heat sheild will be detached and the lander will use parachutes and retro rockets to land.

The crew will stay on Mars for 4 days. Afterwards they will leave the surface using the accent stage. Once the astronauts have returned to the main spacecraft, the accent stage will be jettisoned. The main spacecraft will then use the 3rd and final stage to leave Mars orbit.

When the spacecraft arrives near Earth, the 3 astronauts will climb into the command module which will then detach from the habitat module. The command module will then fly into the atmosphere and then parachute safely to the Surface.

 

[watermelony2k]

i'd be happy to see a moon landing at this point. i was born 21 years after neil armstrong's first step.

 

[FemurBone]

^Yeah but NASA is now talking about building a moon base before going to Mars. That will delay the first Mars landing for another 50 years.

 

[Brent]

What we learn from another manned Moon mission using current tech and the beginnings of setting up a colony will help us get to Mars, baby steps.

 

[FemurBone]

^It won't. Building a moon base will just cost more money and waste more time.

I say go to Mars first and then build a moon base.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The idea of launching a years-long mission to another planet without first developing and testing modern equipment using a proving ground that's only days away is ridiculous - not at all thought-out, and utter nonsense.

 

[Spider]

UWC Defiance said:
The idea of launching a years-long mission to another planet without first developing and testing modern equipment using a proving ground that's only days away is ridiculous - not at all thought-out, and utter nonsense.

Exactly. I have other reasons for not sending men to Mars, but that is a good one. At this time, it's just to expensive, and what will it prove? We already know we could do it if we really wanted, but it would be far more dangerous than most would image. At minimum the folks sent there would be gone almost three years. That's to long for the human body to be without gravity without serious debilitating results on the people sent there. And we have nothing pratical, at least nothing that is either reliable or tested, that could provide such artifical gravity.

 

[Saturn0660]

Gee, and here I thought it would be hard...

 

[Hofner]

Spider said:

UWC Defiance said:
The idea of launching a years-long mission to another planet without first developing and testing modern equipment using a proving ground that's only days away is ridiculous - not at all thought-out, and utter nonsense.

Exactly. I have other reasons for not sending men to Mars, but that is a good one. At this time, it's just to expensive, and what will it prove? We already know we could do it if we really wanted, but it would be far more dangerous than most would image. At minimum the folks sent there would be gone almost three years. That's to long for the human body to be without gravity without serious debilitating results on the people sent there. And we have nothing pratical, at least nothing that is either reliable or tested, that could provide such artifical gravity.

Some good points here. Also consider by the time the astronauts reach Mars' suface, they'll have been in microgravity so long they'll feel like they weigh a ton.

Robert

 

[Spider]

The biggest problem is once you are on your way, there is no turning back. You just are not coming back for three years. If something goes wrong (sickness, whatever) that would be just to bad. Also, you have to take along three years worth of food and water. And we don't have the pratical science yet to fully recycle waste yet so it is, well, "reusable" if ya know what I mean.

Oh, and the radiation. Mars has no ozone layer, so if the sun deciedes to get crazy, you are unprotected on Mars. I suppose extra shielding would help, but you'd have to have that on the craft going there and on the landing craft both.

 

[Arrqh]

Not to mention that a six month trip each way to put a measly two people on the surface for a paltry four days isn't IMO a good return for the cost in both time and money.

It's okay for the moon because it's only a few days away... but as exciting as sending people to Mars is on a conceptual level, what useful thing can two people do in four days that a robot couldn't do?

 

[Spider]

Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

 

[FemurBone]

Spider said:
Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

If they only stay for 4 days or so, the planets should still be aligned enough for a return trip of around 6 months.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

FemurBone said:

Spider said:
Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

If they only stay for 4 days or so, the planets should still be aligned enough for a return trip of around 6 months.

Four days, after a six month trip (at least)? Foolishness.

 

[FemurBone]

UWC Defiance said:

FemurBone said:

Spider said:
Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

If they only stay for 4 days or so, the planets should still be aligned enough for a return trip of around 6 months.

Four days, after a six month trip (at least)? Foolishness.

Well that's all that can be done with current technology and funding. Its long enough to plant the US flag, and collect rocks to be brought back for study.

There are no hotels and laboratories on Mars.

 

[FemurBone]

UWC Defiance said:
The idea of launching a years-long mission to another planet without first developing and testing modern equipment using a proving ground that's only days away is ridiculous - not at all thought-out, and utter nonsense.

The space craft would be tested in Earth orbit. You don't need to fly out to the moon to test a spacecraft.

 

[watermelony2k]

No way that four days is worth it. There would be no science gained from the red planet. A Mars expedition, once reached the planet, should last a year at least.

 

[Spider]

FemurBone said:

Spider said:
Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

If they only stay for 4 days or so, the planets should still be aligned enough for a return trip of around 6 months.

Not correct. Mars and Earth do not follow each other around the sun, they can get quite distant from each other. That why's you only send stuff to Mars when the planets are in the right alignment. It's the same point for coming back from Mars.

 

[Arrqh]

FemurBone said:

UWC Defiance said:

FemurBone said:

Spider said:
Actually they'd be in orbit (or on mars) for about a year. It takes six months to get there, another year for the planets to realign themselves, and then 6 months back.

If they only stay for 4 days or so, the planets should still be aligned enough for a return trip of around 6 months.

Four days, after a six month trip (at least)? Foolishness.

Well that's all that can be done with current technology and funding. Its long enough to plant the US flag, and collect rocks to be brought back for study.

There are no hotels and laboratories on Mars.

If that's all that can currently be done, then we shouldn't be doing it.

 

[FemurBone]

Arrghman said:
Not to mention that a six month trip each way to put a measly two people on the surface for a paltry four days isn't IMO a good return for the cost in both time and money.

It's okay for the moon because it's only a few days away... but as exciting as sending people to Mars is on a conceptual level, what useful thing can two people do in four days that a robot couldn't do?

If your looking for a financial reason to send astronauts to Mars you aren't going to find one. You send astronauts to Mars because Mars is there. That's all the reason you need.

And 4 days is more than enough time. Mars is an uninhabited desert. There are no resort casinos. It's enough time to collect rocks, plant a flag, take pictures, and inspire the human race.