manned Mission to Mars discussion

[jefferiestubes8]

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/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

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/

 

[noknowes]

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.

 

[chardman]

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?

 

[jefferiestubes8]

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.

 

[Daedalus12]

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.

 

[Lindley]

They can use concert speakers to block the radiation!

 

[FemurBone]

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.

 

[SilentP]

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.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

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.

 

[Daedalus12]

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.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

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...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.

http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/CxEMM_SITE/index.html

 

[noknowes]

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.

 

[Mark de Vries]

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

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.

 

[noknowes]

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

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.

 

[chardman]

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?

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?

 

[Bad Bishop]

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.

 

[chardman]

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.

 

[FemurBone]

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.

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.

 

[noknowes]

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?

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?

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.

 

[SilentP]

The figure for 2 trillion is correct.Have you heard of cost over runs?

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.