Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

  • Thread starter Urvabara
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Mars
In summary, both technologies have their pros and cons, but I believe GCNR is the technology of the future. There are many hurdles to be overcome, but if done correctly, the rewards could be great.

Manned mission to Mars before 2020?


  • Total voters
    26
  • #1
Urvabara
99
0
Should there be a world wide joint manned mission to Mars (including landing to the planet) before 2020?

If Yes, then also sign the http://www.petitiononline.com/mars2019/".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would be much more interested in establishing a permanent self-sustaining colony on the moon than a simple manned visit to Mars and return. Once we can do that reliably then we could make a one-way Mars trip.

However, neither is going to happen by 2020, there is no political will to do either.
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #3
I voted no, not because it is to dangerous, but because it is to expensive for no real returns. The sole puropose of any manned mission is simply to keep the man alive. Science takes a backseat.
 
  • #4
I think the key issue is the rocket technology. Chemical rockets are too slow and they need too much fuel. Gas Core Nuclear Reactor is the answer. Nuclear thermal rockets were studied in the NERVA program in the 1960s.

Shortening the mission time makes everything easier. GCNR also permits better radiation shields without the need to reduce science payload.
 
  • #5
Too expensive, and not much point sending a man (and all the accompanying life support systems) when machines (pound for pound) do a much better job anyway.
 
  • #6
Urvabara said:
I think the key issue is the rocket technology. Chemical rockets are too slow and they need too much fuel. Gas Core Nuclear Reactor is the answer. Nuclear thermal rockets were studied in the NERVA program in the 1960s.

Shortening the mission time makes everything easier. GCNR also permits better radiation shields without the need to reduce science payload.
Why does one conclude GCNR is the answer? No one has perfected a GCNR! It would take about 10-15 years of development and testing - and that can't be done on earth. I believe the shielding requirements for GCNR are somewhat greater in volume than for NTR, since the mass density (power density) of the GCNR is much less than NTR and therefore requires more volume and has less self-shielding for a given power level.

NTR is tested, but not perfected.


It might be feasible to send support infrastructure (an orbital station like Skylab (but larger) or ISS) to Mars by 2020.

It is certainly very expensive, but the priorities on Earth seems to be making 'stuff', entertainment, treating preventable illnesses and waging war. Planetary missions require a more advanced civilization.
 
  • #7
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html [Broken]
"The GCNR is a concept which was also experimentally investigated in the 1960s during the Rover program. The idea is to use a gaseous nuclear fuel instead of the solid graphite core used in NERVA. A gaseous fuel could attain tempertures of several tens of thousands of degrees which would allow specific impulses of 3000 to 5000 seconds to be considered. Such an engine would allow manned missions to Mars to be accomplished in a few months each way. Currently, research into the GCNR concept is underway at the Los Alamos National Laboratory under a program from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center."

See also: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html#ntrgascoaxial
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
"The NERVA/Rover project was eventually canceled in 1972 with the general wind-down of NASA in the post-Apollo era. Without a manned mission to Mars, the need for a nuclear thermal rocket was unclear. To a lesser extent it was becoming clear that there could be intense public outcry against any attempt to use a nuclear engine."
 
  • #9
Please, guys, check also this: http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/GCNR%20Aero%20Amer.pdf [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Integral said:
it is to expensive for no real returns
Sadly, this outlook is all too prevalent. The truth is that the technology spawned from such an endeavor would have wide-ranging benefits in many fields far beyond the narrow confines of accomplishing the mission. For example, look at the http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/pdf/80660main_ApolloFS.pdf" [Broken].

This unfortunate misconception is the primary reason why there is no political will to do it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
My objections to such a mission, even if the technical obstacles can be overcome, are (1) the existence of a cheaper alternative (robots/rovers) and (2) just what is the payback for doing this with live people?
 
  • #12
Urvabara said:
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html [Broken]
"The GCNR is a concept which was also experimentally investigated in the 1960s during the Rover program. The idea is to use a gaseous nuclear fuel instead of the solid graphite core used in NERVA. A gaseous fuel could attain tempertures of several tens of thousands of degrees which would allow specific impulses of 3000 to 5000 seconds to be considered. Such an engine would allow manned missions to Mars to be accomplished in a few months each way. Currently, research into the GCNR concept is underway at the Los Alamos National Laboratory under a program from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center."

See also: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html#ntrgascoaxial
I know Howe, who is now at the Center for Space Nuclear Research, Idaho Falls, ID, and others at NASA. The pages cited go back to 1988 and 1998, and to my knowledge, there is no active development program for GNCR at NASA or LANL, but I'll check. AFAIK, it's all on paper. Howe has been way out there with regard to advanced propulsion concepts.

FYI, http://www.csnr.usra.edu/CSNR_Director.html [Broken]

http://www.csnr.usra.edu/CSNR_Homepage.html [Broken]


http://anst.ans.org/ (comments on the site would be greatly appreciated, particularly recommendations for improvement)

For one's edification - http://anst.ans.org/RelatedLinks.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
Notwithstanding an order of magnitude increase in the combined space budgets of all space-faring nations, the technical obstacles to a human mission to Mars by 2020 are insurmountable. Attempting to accomplish a task in too little time costs a lot of money, a lot more than doing the same job at a more appropriate pace. Attempting to accomplish a task in far too little time increases the chance of failure and costs an immense amount of money. Simply put, twelve years is not enough time. Fred Brooks said it best: Just because it takes one woman nine months to have a baby does not mean that throwing eight more women onto the task reduces the time to create a baby down to one month.

==========================================================

Redbelly98 said:
My objections to such a mission, even if the technical obstacles can be overcome, are (1) the existence of a cheaper alternative (robots/rovers) and (2) just what is the payback for doing this with live people?

Regarding item (1): This is a favorite objection of the anti-human spaceflight crowd. The rationale for robotic space exploration becomes vastly weakened without the added incentive that humans will someday go "out there". Only a small handful of nations have a space science budget that could be deemed "significant", and all of these nations are involved with human spaceflight in some form.

Two decades ago, the pro space science / anti-human spaceflight crowd in Great Britain managed to convince the British government to explicitly ban any support for human spaceflight from that nation's budget. Things didn't work out as the pro space science crowd expended. The monies that Great Britain's had expended on human spaceflight did not go to space science. Those monies went elsewhere, and so did a good chunk of that nation's space science budget. The space scientists had a lot less money after they succeeded in getting the government to zero-out support for human spaceflight.

Regarding item (2): Good point. The expenditure for such a venture will be very high, even if done on a more appropriate time scale. A dang good rationale needs to exist. http://www.thespacereview.com" [Broken].
The Space Review said:
Why we explore
So how does one convince Congress to continue to support, or to increase its support, of space exploration? Space enthusiasts, as well as scientists, often argue for rationales that Tyson described as “wonderment”, “the next frontier”, and “the urge to explore”. Those, he argued, are not effective for truly large-scale projects, and cited the cancellation of the Superconducting Supercollider in 1993 as an example. “The project gets cut because it was only driven by science and nothing else,” he said. “That’s the reality of it. I wish it weren’t the case, but that’s what it is.” ... Tyson explained he looked back through history to examine why societies invested in large-scale projects of any kind. He found that those explanations could be lumped into three categories: war, praise of royalty or deity, and the promise of economic return. Apollo, for example, was driven by the first reason, the Cold War conflict between the US and USSR.

Of those three, the second—praise of royalty and deity—is effectively defunct today, leaving war and economic benefit as the primary rationales for investing in large-scale space projects. “So I submit to you that unless China decides that they want to build military bases on Mars… there better be some kind of economic incentive to pull this off,” he concluded. “If going to Mars is expensive, and none of these three is in the service of that driver, then we’re never going to go to Mars.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
D H said:
Just because it takes one woman nine months to have a baby does not mean that throwing eight more women onto the task reduces the time to create a baby down to one month.
:rofl: Oh, that's funny!
 
  • #15
Sadly, this outlook is all too prevalent. The truth is that the technology spawned from such an endeavor would have wide-ranging benefits in many fields far beyond the narrow confines of accomplishing the mission.
Like when NASA developed the space pen for astronauts to write in zero gravity conditions, costing time and money (I think the reported figure by most is $1mil, but this is such a convenient number, my guess it was a little less than this, but still) and everyone else just used a pencil. :wink:

I love space and science and technology, but let's be reasonable. Let's use the cash to fix the problems here, on earth, first, before we start taking our problems elsewhere. I do think that advancements that we would make in performing such a mission could benfit mankind and earth, but would it really be in a reasonable ratio of time and money spent to benefit gained? I think 2020 is a little far fetched.

We know, from history, that people can colonise places (even harsh environments like deserts and the tundra). We also know that people can live in space for extended periods. What more is to be acheived by sending a man to mars?
 
  • #16
redargon said:
I love space and science and technology, but let's be reasonable. Let's use the cash to fix the problems here, on earth, first, before we start taking our problems elsewhere.

Then we have to wait forever. There will always be problems here on Earth. Why should we wait?

redargon said:
We know, from history, that people can colonise places (even harsh environments like deserts and the tundra). We also know that people can live in space for extended periods. What more is to be acheived by sending a man to mars?

What is acheived by making wars and killing people? Nothing. The war of Iraq has cost almost 535 billion ($534,964,835,651) US dollars by now. And the results? Tens of thousands of people has lost their lives.

The journey to the Mars and back to the Earth could cost well under 50 billion US dollars and it would be spend in 10 years and among the whole world (NASA, ESA, RSA, JAXA, CNSA, etc). That's not too much.

And how do we know when a supervolcano blows or huge meteor hits the Earth? It could well happen in our lifetime. If we wait 30 years before we even visit the Mars and then some 30 more years before we have the technology to transfer thousands of people to Mars, it could be too long. The Earth may have been already destroyed and all the humans with it...
 
  • #17
Urvabara said:
What is acheived by making wars and killing people? Nothing. The war of Iraq has cost almost 535 billion ($534,964,835,651) US dollars by now. And the results? Tens of thousands of people has lost their lives.

The journey to the Mars and back to the Earth could cost well under 50 billion US dollars and it would be spend in 10 years and among the whole world (NASA, ESA, RSA, JAXA, CNSA, etc). That's not too much.
I'm not sure where you get that figure. It is probably an order of magnitude low, and the timeframe is also way too low:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/119/1
 
  • Like
Likes mheslep
  • #18
Urvabara said:
Then we have to wait forever. There will always be problems here on Earth. Why should we wait?



What is acheived by making wars and killing people? Nothing. The war of Iraq has cost almost 535 billion ($534,964,835,651) US dollars by now. And the results? Tens of thousands of people has lost their lives.

The journey to the Mars and back to the Earth could cost well under 50 billion US dollars and it would be spend in 10 years and among the whole world (NASA, ESA, RSA, JAXA, CNSA, etc). That's not too much.

And how do we know when a supervolcano blows or huge meteor hits the Earth? It could well happen in our lifetime. If we wait 30 years before we even visit the Mars and then some 30 more years before we have the technology to transfer thousands of people to Mars, it could be too long. The Earth may have been already destroyed and all the humans with it...

I'm not sure how you got from my argument to the war in Iraq? By colonisation I meant finding, cultivating and colonising uninhabited land (like mars, hopefully :wink:) If there is a link, then how does a manned Mars mission make any difference to the war in Iraq? Perhaps a Mars mission will use up some of the US budget so that their money will be used for advancement and not war, but other than that I still don't see your connection.

I agree that a catastrophic disaster could make our entire species extinct, but that borders on the realm of a philosophical nature. A catastrophe has the same chance happening tomorrow as it does happening in 10 years or in the next 100. There hasn't been a cataclysm that has destroyed an entire species in millions of years, why should we be counting in decades now? Do you think the human race should live forever? Could this be acheived by sending thousands of people to Mars instead of letting them die here? What stops a meteor from hitting and destroying any future life on mars? Why not build a traveling metropolis in space and send it hurtling through the cosmos with thousands of people on board?

Answering your first question, we don't have to wait to explore the options, but why rush into something that could result in failure just because somebody says: "2020, that sounds like a good date, yeah, let's go for 2020" Why not 2025 or 2050 or 2300?

I think I posed too many questions to be helpful, sorry. It is a great concept to think about though and that always generates questions. Also note that I did not vote in the poll, because I am unsure and am looking forward to basing my decision on what I learn here from other people's opinions.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
redargon said:
Like when NASA developed the space pen for astronauts to write in zero gravity conditions, costing time and money (I think the reported figure by most is $1mil, but this is such a convenient number, my guess it was a little less than this, but still) and everyone else just used a pencil. :wink:
Right, because the space pen is the only technology that came out of the space program to civilian use. :rolleyes:

redargon said:
I love space and science and technology, but let's be reasonable. Let's use the cash to fix the problems here, on earth, first, before we start taking our problems elsewhere. I do think that advancements that we would make in performing such a mission could benfit mankind and earth, but would it really be in a reasonable ratio of time and money spent to benefit gained? I think 2020 is a little far fetched.
I agree that 2020 is a silly timeframe, but do you honestly believe that the problems here on Earth can be solved with cash? The "solve our problems first" idea is a concept that leads to complete paralysis, we will always have problems, so why do anything? I disagree fundamentally with that attitude. In large measure the progress made in the last couple of centuries has been driven by innovation. This would be a great source of innovation and would contribute more towards really fixing our problems than the same amount of money spent in redistribution of wealth programs.

redargon said:
We know, from history, that people can colonise places (even harsh environments like deserts and the tundra). We also know that people can live in space for extended periods. What more is to be acheived by sending a man to mars?
Again, I would vote for developing a self-sustaining moon colony, or even a self-sustaining space-station, over a simple visit to Mars. No environment on earth, even Antarctica, is nearly as harsh as space, and we don't even have self sustaining colonies on Antarctica. There is plenty to learn, and if we don't learn it then, sooner or later, the human race is dead.
 
  • #20
DaleSpam said:
Right, because the space pen is the only technology that came out of the space program to civilian use. :rolleyes:

I agree that 2020 is a silly timeframe, but do you honestly believe that the problems here on Earth can be solved with cash? The "solve our problems first" idea is a concept that leads to complete paralysis, we will always have problems, so why do anything? I disagree fundamentally with that attitude. In large measure the progress made in the last couple of centuries has been driven by innovation. This would be a great source of innovation and would contribute more towards really fixing our problems than the same amount of money spent in redistribution of wealth programs.

Again, I would vote for developing a self-sustaining moon colony, or even a self-sustaining space-station, over a simple visit to Mars. No environment on earth, even Antarctica, is nearly as harsh as space, and we don't even have self sustaining colonies on Antarctica. There is plenty to learn, and if we don't learn it then, sooner or later, the human race is dead.

I'm not saying the space pen is the only technology to come from space research, I was mentioning one example. Sure it's a biased example, just thought it said something about the cost to benefit ratio of any project.

I would be interested to find out what kind of cost to benifit ratio could be acheived by people living off-earth. Do you think the main benefits would further our ability to continue to live off-earth and/or also provide benefits for the people that are living here on Earth at the moment? Of course, I mean major benefits, unlike my pen comment earlier :tongue:

I wonder if trying to make a self sustaining colony in the antarctic (seeing that we can't even do that yet, according to DaleSpam) or something similar (ok, like maybe a moon colony being it between antartica and Mars in difficulty level) would be a more tentative first step than rushing straight of to mars. The lessons learned from this would also, assumably be beneficial. If we could perfect something like that I'm sure that would boost the populations confidence in more difficult and risky projects. Any reasons for Mars in particular? Why not one of Jupiter's moons? (maybe too far?)
 
  • #21
Well, at least no one has voted for chemical rockets. Good, very good!
 
  • #22
DaleSpam said:
I would be much more interested in establishing a permanent self-sustaining colony on the moon than a simple manned visit to Mars and return. Once we can do that reliably then we could make a one-way Mars trip.
If that had been an option I would have voted for that -- except for the one-way trip part. We will need to return from Mars for quite some time before we are ready to colonize it.

DaleSpam said:
D H said:
Fred Brooks said it best: Just because it takes one woman nine months to have a baby does not mean that throwing eight more women onto the task reduces the time to create a baby down to one month.
:rofl: Oh, that's funny!
The Mythical Man-Month by Fred Brooks is one of those must-read books for anyone involved in managing or planning a technology project. Another one-liner from the book is Brook's Law: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." The artificial 2020 deadline in the poll makes this book very relevant to this thread.

redargon said:
Like when NASA developed the space pen for astronauts to write in zero gravity conditions, costing time and money (I think the reported figure by most is $1mil, but this is such a convenient number, my guess it was a little less than this, but still) and everyone else just used a pencil. :wink:
The oft-quoted number is 1000 times that. Whatever the figure, the billion dollar space pen is used to denigrate NASA. But ooops, the billion dollar space pen is a http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1".

redargon said:
I love space and science and technology, but let's be reasonable. Let's use the cash to fix the problems here, on earth, first, before we start taking our problems elsewhere.
This is an oft-used argument against spending money on space. It is a recipe for paralysis.

This is a naive argument. Working on the long pole at the expense of all other tasks might work on a very small project. This strategy won't work on projects of any significant size because there are too many long poles. Projects of significant size must be partitioned into smaller projects and worked in parallel. The government as a whole is a project of gargantuan size. The government has to work on many things at once or nothing will get done.

It is curious that those who use this argument often preface it with "I love space and science and technology". Claiming to love something in the same sentence where the claimant advocating killing that something just doesn't jibe.

Urvabara said:
Then we have to wait forever. There will always be problems here on Earth. Why should we wait?
Yes, there will always be problems on Earth. I addressed that above. However, you have posed a false dilemma.

Just as the government as a whole is a gargantuan problem, so is sending humans to Mars. This too is a project that needs to be broken down into multiple pieces that are worked in parallel. One of the reasons for sending robotic probes to Mars is to serve as a precursor to a human visit. One of the reasons for returning to the Moon and staying there is to learn how to solve the logistics and radiation protection problems. Trying to do it all in one swell foop is a recipe for failure.

redargon said:
I think 2020 is a little far fetched.
That is true. This is not just a matter of political will. If that were the case we could solve the problem by throwing money at it. The 2020 deadline is technologically unachievable. There are many known unknowns that must be solved, and 12 years is too short Some of the known unknowns are getting there safely (we have a paltry 50% success rate or so with unmanned missions to Mars), logistics (a Mars mission will require many vehicles launching and docking at multiple places, often autonomously), radiation (15 months of transit time will expose the crew to deadly doses of radiation), staying on Mars (is Mars dust deadly?), leaving Mars (we have never made a vehicle return from Mars), ... These known unknowns are bad enough. With all of these known unknowns, there certainly are quite a few unknown unknowns lurking out there.

Urvabara said:
The journey to the Mars and back to the Earth could cost well under 50 billion US dollars and it would be spend in 10 years and among the whole world (NASA, ESA, RSA, JAXA, CNSA, etc).
That figure is off by a factor of two, and possibly ten, and the timeframe is off by a factor of two as well.

Urvabara said:
And how do we know when a supervolcano blows or huge meteor hits the Earth? It could well happen in our lifetime.
In that case we are f***ed because we will not be colonizing Mars for a long, long time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Why bother with spending all the effort to get out of a gravity well to go down another.
To heck with mars.
Are there no asteroids worth mining? With remotes.
 
  • #24
@ D H
I think my approach to learning was a little wrong here. I've tried to clear it up, but people read what they want to and I will be labelled a naive, tree hugging hippy for the rest of this thread because I said that we should maybe fix some problems here first before we rush into another space mission. Some people even thought I was referring to the war in Iraq for some reason (there are other problems btw, energy crisis, hunger and disease, etc). Anyway, for those who read and contemplate entire posts... I do love science, technology and space (that's why I'm an aeronautical engineer and working for a company that supplies the ESA). If all I cared about was world peace I would have followed a different path. I know this would be a typical argument so I am suggesting it. Just because I love technology doe not mean that I will be ignorant enough to believe that technology is the only solution to everything. I am only posing questions from the "other side" to help me to understand the problem better. As I said before, I have not voted in the pole and have not taken a side in the debate. I am open to all the opinions and will use those to make a final decision for myself.

I was unaware that the space pen was an urban legend (I knew it was embellished, but to what degree, I was not aware), but your link to that article cleared things up a little, are there more references like that? It just goes to show what you can learn by showing a little ignorance as long as you are willing to learn from your mistakes (I am) I actually used one of the space pens (it did write upside down and underwater if I remember correctly. I couldn't test it at 0g :wink:) that was given to someone I know as a gift for a project he did with NASA. The article you sent didn't state the development costs of the pen, only a price per piece, maybe this could be clarified. As I also specified, I believed the $1mil price tag to have been embellished. I'm not a complete sucker for urban myths, but where there is muck there is brass (I recently read that in one of the PF member's signatures, I like it :approve:)

Instead of arguing who is right, maybe you can help my and other's understanding more if you explain some of the benefits that could possibly come from manned space missions, especially in terms of creating self sustaining colonies.
Here are some that I can think of:
- Developments in reducing energy requirements for generating motion, lighting, environmental control and appliances (such as computers, food preservers, cooking apparatus) during the design of a self sustainable colony/complex could easily be manipulated to cater for the same problems on earth. This could help the energy saving capabilities of everyday people doing everyday things on Earth and for future space expeditions.
- Possible medical (physical and psycological) discoveries from the interaction of people and how they would survive the tasks at hand during such a difficult project could be applied to people on Earth in some situations.
- Mining of minerals that maybe useful if transported back to earth.
- Other experimentation that can only take place in low g conditions, vacuum conditions, outside of the Earth's atmosphere or magnetic field etc.

I think this is a constructive take on why or why not people should consider manned space missions.
 
  • #25
I didn't choose an answer in the poll because the answers are all too biased. While a manned mission to Mars will happen some time in the future, it ceratinly won't happen by 2020, and most definitely will cost more than $50 billion. That's not to say it would be "too much," just commenting that it will be a very expensive edeavor.

Take for example, the costs adjusted for inflation of the Apollo program:
Wikipedia.com said:
According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 Billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $135 Billion in 2005 Dollars). [emphasis added]

Considering the duration and required development for a manned mission to Mars, it doesn't seem too far fetched to guess that it could cost at very least triple that of the Apollo missions, approaching or surpassing $500 billion (in 2008 dollars, imagine what it will cost in 20 years. A couple trillion maybe...).
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
2020 seems to be way too optimistic.

I spoke to guy in DC last weekend, and Ares I is set to go to the moon in 2009. If things go well, Ares V is scheduled for 2012.

Things would have to go *really* well, to get a manned mission to Mars by 2020, in my opinion.
 
  • #28
seycyrus said:
I spoke to guy in DC last weekend, and Ares I is set to go to the moon in 2009. If things go well, Ares V is scheduled for 2012.
2009 to the moon? Not a chance.

Orion is planned to go with pad abort tests beginning later this year. Next year (2009) the project will start making ascent abort tests with the Ares I / Orion stack. The vehicle will not even get into orbit in 2009, let alone to the moon. The first Orion/ISS docking won't occur until 2014 or 2015. The first Ares V / Altair + Ares I / Orion lunar mission won't occur until 2020. Getting to Mars by 2020 is reminiscent of this simple math problem:
Points A and B are 30 miles apart. If I drive from A to B at an average speed of 30 mph, how fast must I drive from B back to A to make my average speed for the round trip 60 mph?​
 
  • #29
D H said:
2009 to the moon? Not a chance.

Orion is planned to go with pad abort tests beginning later this year. Next year (2009) the project will start making ascent abort tests with the Ares I / Orion stack. The vehicle will not even get into orbit in 2009, let alone to the moon. ...

Hrmm, you seem to be pretty specific regarding the timeline, So I defer.

Incidently, the guy I spoke to was a Nasa rep. at the Nasa part of the folklore exhibition for the 4th of July expo.

Perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying.
 
  • #30
Ok, ok. Let's try to do some research and calculations to solve (??) at least some of the problems.

Here are the problems that I know of:
1. Radiation from the Sun
2. No gravity
3. Landing is extremely difficult
4. Micrometeros flying through the ship and killing the crew
5. Crew member(s) could need a surgery
6. Crew member(s) could get insane
7. Too long a mission

Ok. Now I try to find at least something to solve these problems:
1. Let's put a 25 cm layer of water around the place where the crew will be most of the mission time. Let's also reduce the whole mission time to 270 days. According to this http://internet.cybermesa.com/~mrpbar/staifpaper.html [Broken] the radiation dose should be as low as 0.22 Sv. Without the 25 cm water shield the dose could be 2.04 Sv, if the mission lasts 900 days. Polyethylene should also be a good radiation shield. Maybe astronauts' sleeping tubes/beds could be made of polyethylene. How about producing a magnetic field around the ship? It should also reduce the radiation.

2. Then we have to make some gravity. Rotating a centrifuge of radius of 10 meters with rotating speed of 6 RPM should produce an acceleration of 0.38 g. That's the surface gravity on Mars. The crew would get used to 0.38 g right from the beginning of the mission. I do not know if 0.38 g is enough to keep bones in a good shape, but at least it is better than 0 g! 6 RPM is pretty high, but according to this http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html even 7.5 RPM...10 RPM could be possible without major side effects. I just don't know how to get the centrifuge on LEO with Ares V. Can you help me with this? Centrifuge data: diameter: ~20 meters, width: ~4.5 meters, volume: ~1414 m[tex]^3[/tex]. (That should be enough for a crew of eight.)

3. Landing with a parachute is dangerous. Maybe the crew could land with an automatic propulsion landing system. Yes, it would need more fuel than the parachute landing system, but it would be much safer. The landing vehicle could have wheels to that the crew could drive to the supplies!

4. Here is the neat part. The radiation shield also shields against micro meteors! If a micro meteor makes a hole to the wall then the radiation shield (the water!) will start to leak out of the wall and it would freeze instantly covering the hole and stopping the leak. Neat, very very neat!

5. Yes, they could need a surgery, but reducing the mission time from 3 years to <1 year will reduce the possibility of surgery. Crew of 8 could include one or maybe even two surgeons.

6. In the centrifuge there should be own room for everybody. Of course, there will be thousands of books, magazines and movies in the ship. Showers and toilets could be far better than they are in ISS or Space Shuttle. Crew members could send videos to their families and backwards. Again, reducing the mission time will also reduce the possibility that someone goes insane.

7. Reducing the mission time from years to months would solve most of the problems. We MUST forget the chemical rockets! They are only good when getting the stuff from the Earth to LEO. We MUST consider using Nuclear Thermal Rockets and/or Ion Engines! Why aren't they now developing NTRs?! If the whole mission could be made in just 8 months that would solve almost all the problems! ESA is considering 1000 days mission to Mars. That's just ridiculous! 240 days should be enough. What is the problem with Gaseous Core Nuclear Reactors? Are people just too afraid of using nuclei!? Is it too expensive or what? We MUST start developing NTRs and Ion engines if we want to go Mars someday.

BTW, is it possible/sensible to use two different engines at once? Maybe some kind of a combination of GCNR and Ion engine? The point is that we must go to Mars using a fast ship. We do not want to stay there 1.5 years waiting the planets to go to the right position.

Just my two eurocents.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Urvabara said:
Here are the problems that I know of:
1. Radiation from the Sun
2. No gravity
3. Landing is extremely difficult
4. Micrometeros flying through the ship and killing the crew
5. Crew member(s) could need a surgery
6. Crew member(s) could get insane
7. Too long a mission
That's a start, but just a start. Add living on Mars, toxicity of Mars dust, toxicity of Martian life, toxicity of Earth life toxic (to Martian life), launching from Mars, coming back to Earth, landing on Earth (we've never done aerobraking/aerocapture with the Earth), and how to coordinate all of the flights needed (logistics) and you'll get a few more, and not a complete list at that. This does not include the unknown unknowns, and those are a bear to find. Oh, and don't forget the environmental movement.

I will only explicitly address one item. For the rest, all of your solutions require more power, more mass, and more volume. These are the three big no-nos in spaceflight.

7. Reducing the mission time from years to months would solve most of the problems. We MUST forget the chemical rockets! They are only good when getting the stuff from the Earth to LEO. We MUST consider using Nuclear Thermal Rockets and/or Ion Engines! Why aren't they now developing NTRs?!
Because of the environmental movement, at least in part. Every single launch of a vehicle with RTGs (a mere 7.5 kg of non-weapons grade plutonium) is met with lawsuits and protests. Launching massive amounts of HEU will not only bring on the wrath of every environment movement worldwide, it will also attract some disreputable types who would like to get their hands on that material. Launching weapons-grade material into space might well be in violation of several space treaties. Just getting the material safely up to LEO is a huge problem. Then there is on orbit assembly of a nuclear rocket (no way it will be assembled on the ground). The logistics problem is huge. Need I go on?

Even if these problems could be overcome, it is not going to happen in the 12 years from now until 2020 (your deadline). The engines you want are at what NASA and the military call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level#NASA_definitions". In short, they are paper concepts at the basic science level only. Getting to TRL 9 will not happen overnight. It will not happen within a decade. If you are very young, this technology might be ready before you die.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Gas Core Nuclear Rockets: http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/03/to-mars-in-30-days-by-gas-core-nuclear.html [Broken]
"Ragsdale ended his article by calling for more gas-core engine research and development. He predicted that "Gas-core work will likely continue along its present line for the next year or two." By the time his article saw print, however, NASA had, at the insistence of the Nixon Administration, largely turned its back on nuclear propulsion. On January 24, 1972, while Ragsdale's article was still current, the Nixon White House unveiled its Fiscal Year 1973 NASA budget. It contained no funds for the NERVA solid-core nuclear-thermal rocket engine, which for 12 years had been the main focus of the U.S. nuclear rocket program. In 1974, NASA terminated all remaining U.S. nuclear rocket research."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Artificial Gravity: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html

I just love the centrifuge of Discovery spacecraft in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The problem is that its radius is only 5.5 meters. How about 10 meters (diameter: 20 meters) centrifuge? Is it too big to get on LEO?
 
  • #35
I will try addressing a few of your ideas, but there's a lot to process here...

Urvabara said:
1. Let's put a 25 cm layer of water around the place where the crew will be most of the mission time.

From what I understand, water is only good at shielding from neutrons and some other high-energy particles (due to its high Hydrogen content, same with polyethylene), but gamma rays and other high energy ionizing radiations pass right through. Basically, you've only adressed one small part of the shielding dilemma.

There is no technology available to produce a powerful magnetic field that can envelop an entire space ship, so "magnetic shielding" is not an option.

Urvabara said:
2. Then we have to make some gravity. Rotating a centrifuge of radius of 10 meters with rotating speed of 6 RPM should produce an acceleration of 0.38 g. That's the surface gravity on Mars.

Sounds like a very uncomfortable ride. At a radius of 10m and 6rpm, the coriolis accelerations would be very obvious to the crew members when they were in it, causing pretty bad nausea and disorientation. Wikipedia has a good article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity" [Broken] where rotating spacecraft are discussed. The article states that rotational speeds of less that 2rpm need to be used to minimize the coriolis forces present. Sounds like you'll need a much large radius of rotation to still achieve Martian-G, let alone Earth-G.

Urvabara said:
3. Landing with a parachute is dangerous. Maybe the crew could land with an automatic propulsion landing system. Yes, it would need more fuel than the parachute landing system, but it would be much safer.

Actually, from what I understand parachute landings are safer and less prone to failure than powered decelerations/landings. Carrying fuel for deceleration and landing is a huge waste when you have an atmosphere at your disposal.

Urvabara said:
4. Here is the neat part. The radiation shield also shields against micro meteors! If a micro meteor makes a hole to the wall then the radiation shield (the water!) will start to leak out of the wall and it would freeze instantly covering the hole and stopping the leak. Neat, very very neat!

I dont' think 25cm of water will provide much resistance to micrometeroites travelleing at several km/s. Also, as soon as the water is exposed to the vacuum it will sublime away, not form an ice "plug." If the water radiation shield is breached, all of the water will eventually sublime/boil off and vent into space.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What is the purpose of a manned Mars mission before 2020?</h2><p>The purpose of a manned Mars mission before 2020 is to explore the red planet and potentially establish a human presence on Mars. This mission would also allow for further scientific research and advancements in technology.</p><h2>2. How long would it take for a manned mission to reach Mars?</h2><p>The estimated travel time for a manned mission to reach Mars is approximately 6-9 months, depending on the trajectory and speed of the spacecraft.</p><h2>3. What are the potential risks and challenges of a manned Mars mission?</h2><p>There are several potential risks and challenges associated with a manned Mars mission, including exposure to radiation, long periods of isolation and confinement, and the physical and psychological effects of microgravity. Additionally, the mission would require advanced technology and precise planning to ensure the safety and success of the crew.</p><h2>4. How will astronauts survive on Mars?</h2><p>Astronauts on a manned Mars mission would need to bring their own supplies, including food, water, and oxygen, as well as equipment for growing plants and producing resources. They would also need to build a habitat that can protect them from the harsh Martian environment and provide them with a livable space.</p><h2>5. What are the potential benefits of a manned Mars mission?</h2><p>A manned Mars mission has the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the universe and the potential for human exploration and habitation on other planets. It could also lead to technological advancements and new discoveries that could benefit life on Earth. Additionally, a successful mission could inspire future generations to pursue careers in science and space exploration.</p>

1. What is the purpose of a manned Mars mission before 2020?

The purpose of a manned Mars mission before 2020 is to explore the red planet and potentially establish a human presence on Mars. This mission would also allow for further scientific research and advancements in technology.

2. How long would it take for a manned mission to reach Mars?

The estimated travel time for a manned mission to reach Mars is approximately 6-9 months, depending on the trajectory and speed of the spacecraft.

3. What are the potential risks and challenges of a manned Mars mission?

There are several potential risks and challenges associated with a manned Mars mission, including exposure to radiation, long periods of isolation and confinement, and the physical and psychological effects of microgravity. Additionally, the mission would require advanced technology and precise planning to ensure the safety and success of the crew.

4. How will astronauts survive on Mars?

Astronauts on a manned Mars mission would need to bring their own supplies, including food, water, and oxygen, as well as equipment for growing plants and producing resources. They would also need to build a habitat that can protect them from the harsh Martian environment and provide them with a livable space.

5. What are the potential benefits of a manned Mars mission?

A manned Mars mission has the potential to greatly advance our understanding of the universe and the potential for human exploration and habitation on other planets. It could also lead to technological advancements and new discoveries that could benefit life on Earth. Additionally, a successful mission could inspire future generations to pursue careers in science and space exploration.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
357
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
7
Views
780
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • General Engineering
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
26
Views
10K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top