A trip to Mars and back in two or three months? Surely you jest. The best estimates say it'd take nearly 2 to 3 years for the entire, round trip and stay, journey.
Obama Sets Mars Goal For America
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
A trip to Mars and back in two or three months? Surely you jest. The best estimates say it'd take nearly 2 to 3 years for the entire, round trip and stay, journey.
The ISS is in a bad orbit for starting missions BEO. As far as assemble in orbit, for the near future most of it will consist of docking modules together much like the ISS. So the question becomes, do you build an ISS to build an ISS?
The trip to Mars could be preceeded by one or more unmanned supply craft programmed to drop into Mars orbit and sit there. Then the manned trip would be able to resupply on arrival before starting back.
If one presumes that there will be supply craft sitting there in Mars orbit, you may as well dock them. And once you start doing that, you may as well make it an actual station. And once you start doing *that*, the possibility of leaving a few people there for months at a time becomes a possibility.
If one presumes that there will be supply craft sitting there in Mars orbit, you may as well dock them. And once you start doing that, you may as well make it an actual station. And once you start doing *that*, the possibility of leaving a few people there for months at a time becomes a possibility.
Apollo 11 was only the third manned spacecraft to orbit Earth's moon. Apollo 8 was the first manned lunar orbit and Apollo 9 tested the Lunar lander in Earth orbit.
A trip to Mars takes much linger in transit. A problem during vehicle testing would permit a greater chance of rescue or the safe return of the crew of a stricken vehicle (like Apollo 13) if the testing took place in Earth orbit or landing/launch of a lander on Earth's moon. A manned trip to Mars orbit wouldn't have any more value for vehicle testing, crew training or studying the planet (visual photography and radar observations can be acomplished by unmanned missions). One of the proposals for Mars missions includes remote operated supply vehicles that would actually land on the planet's surface where they could, for a moths or years long period, draw upon the planet's thin atmosphere to produce propellants to be used for a manned mission at a later date. The manned mission could wait on Earth until the remote operated supply ships were in place and operating.
For what's in many ways a forty year old design Russia's Soyuz series of manned spacecraft continues to be reliable. Just because a design is decades old it doesn't mean it's bad. Many of the launch vehicles used for unmanned satellite launches are using major components based on decades old designs including solid propelent boosters similar to those used by the Space Transportation System (commonly called "The Shuttle").
How many times do we have to flush large quantities of money down the toilet with highly speculative technology that's going to prove unfeasible for the foreseeable future? Single Stage To Orbit was looking pretty good for a while, until one prototype's landing gear didn't extend and the "proof of concept" vehicle fell over and was obliterated in a spectacular explosion. Another concept was dependent on lightweight composite materials that proved impossible, for the foreseeable future, to fabricated in a form that could reliably contain the tiny molecules of the hydrogen fuel. Return from orbit involves much higher speeds (therefore heating) than the suborbital re-entries of Spaceship One and the new and untested Virgin Galactic spacecraft. I haven't heard of Scaled Composites or any of the other private firms conducting an actual orbital test of a spacecraft that is intended to carry people.
A trip to Mars takes much linger in transit. A problem during vehicle testing would permit a greater chance of rescue or the safe return of the crew of a stricken vehicle (like Apollo 13) if the testing took place in Earth orbit or landing/launch of a lander on Earth's moon. A manned trip to Mars orbit wouldn't have any more value for vehicle testing, crew training or studying the planet (visual photography and radar observations can be acomplished by unmanned missions). One of the proposals for Mars missions includes remote operated supply vehicles that would actually land on the planet's surface where they could, for a moths or years long period, draw upon the planet's thin atmosphere to produce propellants to be used for a manned mission at a later date. The manned mission could wait on Earth until the remote operated supply ships were in place and operating.
For what's in many ways a forty year old design Russia's Soyuz series of manned spacecraft continues to be reliable. Just because a design is decades old it doesn't mean it's bad. Many of the launch vehicles used for unmanned satellite launches are using major components based on decades old designs including solid propelent boosters similar to those used by the Space Transportation System (commonly called "The Shuttle").
How many times do we have to flush large quantities of money down the toilet with highly speculative technology that's going to prove unfeasible for the foreseeable future? Single Stage To Orbit was looking pretty good for a while, until one prototype's landing gear didn't extend and the "proof of concept" vehicle fell over and was obliterated in a spectacular explosion. Another concept was dependent on lightweight composite materials that proved impossible, for the foreseeable future, to fabricated in a form that could reliably contain the tiny molecules of the hydrogen fuel. Return from orbit involves much higher speeds (therefore heating) than the suborbital re-entries of Spaceship One and the new and untested Virgin Galactic spacecraft. I haven't heard of Scaled Composites or any of the other private firms conducting an actual orbital test of a spacecraft that is intended to carry people.
Last edited:
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
When they said spacedock I don't think they were meaning the massive variety in Trek.
If a ship is going to be constructed in space you will require some kind of Dock in Space. A Spacedock.
Yeah, sort-of like before we built the ISS in space we had to build a construction yard for it.
Wait...
Of all the various problems, that one is one of the easiest. Just use rotation. Of course, that does require a craft slightly larger than a mere capsule in order to be effective; but then, presumably the travelers would want space to move around a bit in those 6 months anyway.
Yes, in fact I think that is the only engine we have today that is capable for this mission.
It will probably make runs between Earth and the moon(also as a shake down) to pick up enough speed before heading towards Mars.
Nuclear Thermal shouldn't be forgotten
http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/projects/ntp/index.shtml
http://trajectory.grc.nasa.gov/projects/ntp/index.shtml
First, to get astronauts to the ISS...
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Then develop a HLLV..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)
And a little something more..
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/well-there-seem.html
Now..with no near term goal..I really don't see the Space Agency all fired up to deliver even on these modest plans..
at least NASA had something tangable to shoot at with the canceled moon project..
so I guess it's back to LEO for the next 50+ years...(if you thought Mars is the true goal, you're mistaken..it's robotic exploration now)
http://www.spacex.com/updates.php
Then develop a HLLV..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_(rocket_family)
And a little something more..
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/well-there-seem.html
Now..with no near term goal..I really don't see the Space Agency all fired up to deliver even on these modest plans..
at least NASA had something tangable to shoot at with the canceled moon project..
so I guess it's back to LEO for the next 50+ years...(if you thought Mars is the true goal, you're mistaken..it's robotic exploration now)
funding for Mars
funding for manned Mission to Mars [financial/political ONLY]
Jax perhaps this thread would interest you then?
funding for manned Mission to Mars [financial/political ONLY]
Exactly right goldbug.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4004772&postcount=3
Why?
Start with the biggest piece of the ship and connect all the parts to it from there. The machines used to build can clamp onto the ship itself. Why does that first piece of ship need to be connected to something else in the same orbit?
I like this idea, because I think overall we're going to need to start mining asteroids for raw materials. IMHO, this is a better idea, with a more suitable purpose than going to Mars, "Just to get there". The goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him home was more for national pride and "because it's there" than anything. The "land on Mars" crowd haven't grown beyond that.
