Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

[Urvabara]

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/".

 

[Dale]

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.

 

[Integral]

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.

 

[Urvabara]

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.

 

[brewnog]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Urvabara]

http://internet.cybermesa.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html
"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

 

[Urvabara]

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."

 

[Urvabara]

Please, guys, check also this: http://www.lascruces.com/~mrpbar/GCNR%20Aero%20Amer.pdf

 

[Dale]

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" .

This unfortunate misconception is the primary reason why there is no political will to do it.

 

[Redbelly98]

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?

 

[Astronuc]

http://internet.cybermesa.com/~mrpbar/rocket.html
"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

http://www.csnr.usra.edu/CSNR_Homepage.html


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

 

[D H]

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.

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

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" .

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.”

 

[Dale]

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.

Oh, that's funny!

 

[redargon]

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.

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?

 

[Urvabara]

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?

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...

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[redargon]

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 ) 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.

 

[Dale]

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.

Right, because the space pen is the only technology that came out of the space program to civilian use.

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.

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.

 

[redargon]

Right, because the space pen is the only technology that came out of the space program to civilian use.

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

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?)

 

[Urvabara]

Well, at least no one has voted for chemical rockets. Good, very good!

 

[D H]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Alfi]

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.

 

[redargon]

@ 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 ) 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 )

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.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

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:

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...).

 

[D H]

First off, I have not voted in the poll either. I rarely do so because this poll, like most other forum polls, is deeply flawed.

I'm short on time. For now, try http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1160/1".

 

[seycyrus]

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.

 

[D H]

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?​

 

[seycyrus]

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.

 

[Urvabara]

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 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^3. (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.

 

[D H]

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.

 

[Urvabara]

Electromagnetic shielding: http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/MagShield.html

 

[Urvabara]

Gas Core Nuclear Rockets: http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/03/to-mars-in-30-days-by-gas-core-nuclear.html
"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."

 

[Urvabara]

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?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I will try addressing a few of your ideas, but there's a lot to process here...

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.

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" 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.

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.

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.

 

[Urvabara]

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3u.html
"However, the data on artificial gravity is a bit out of date. The original research into it had subjects sick at 3 RPM and incapacitated at 6 RPM+. However, more recent research suggests that, by using incremental increases in rotation and making a few limb movements, adaptation can occur with almost no feelings of nausea. The old research (done on about 30 subjects) simply went from zero to full rotation. Moreover, the adaptation can be simultaneous with non- rotational adaptation. So, moving in and out of the rotating habitat for maintenance or whatever is no problem. It's thought that rotation rates of up 7.5 to 10 RPM are possible. This makes Discovery's 5.5m radius centrifuge a real possibility. In fact, with 10 RPM, you could crank it up to a handsome 0.61 G, or 0.34G if you want to play it safe at 7.5RPM."

 

[Astronuc]

Gas Core Nuclear Rockets: http://altairvi.blogspot.com/2008/03/to-mars-in-30-days-by-gas-core-nuclear.html
"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."

Somebody has to do criticality tests with U-plasmas first, and based on GCR concepts, there would be problems with seeded H-propellant. There is the little matter of confinment of U-plasma, and the removal of fission projects - out the nozzle with the propellant. Best place to test that is on an asteroid.

 

[D H]

Urvabara,

A human mission to Mars in twelve short years must necessarily be a development program rather than a research program. The engineering challenges of stringing together proven technologies to accomplish this goal in such a short time span are incredibly significant. Your last few posts have been on technologies that are far from proven. They are on technologies with very low technology readiness. A string of things, none of which is ready for prime time, makes a very poor basis for making a human mission to Mars in twelve short years.

I suggest you read this wiki description of what NASA and the military call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_Readiness_Level#NASA_definitions". Over the last several years NASA has come to use this metric quite extensively in its development programs to identify long poles that need extra resources and in its research program to determine where limited research monies are best applied.

 

[Urvabara]

Ok. Thank you people.

I would still like to find a solution to the centrifuge problem(s). How to get it on LEO (Low Earth Orbit) with Ares V?

What other problems there are with centrifuges? Consumption of electricity? Too high RPM? The spacecraft starts to wobble when the centrifuge spins?

Still, I wouldn't like to see a manned Mars missions without centrigues. Imagine the crew floating whole the time!

 

[Astronuc]

NASA has a priority on Lunar Missions, and manned missions to Mars are effectively over the horizon, unless something changes drastically. Here is the current situation with respect to Lunar missions and Ares I.

Ares I to have extended booster nozzle for lunar flights. Flight International (7/8, Coppinger) reported, "NASA is planning to extend its Ares I crew launch vehicle's solid rocket booster first-stage nozzle in time for the maiden lunar mission, to deliver improved performance." This change will not be made in time for the Orion's launch to the International Space Station in 2015. Ares I first-stage manager Alex Priskos said, "Extending the nozzle is 'a requirement for lunar missions, beginning with the Orion 13 flight. The plan is to incorporate the extended exit cone in time to support that mission.'" Priskos also stated that "'specific hardware interface responsibilities between Ares and ground operations have been defined', deciding who designs what, and that each design is at a 'different point in design maturity.'"

This refers to an article in Flight International - http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/08/225142/ares-i-to-get-extended-nozzle-lunar-variant.html


See also - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html

Moon, Mars and beyond - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/index.html

 

[Urvabara]

You probably agree with me that the real development of a manned Mars mission should start right away? I do not know if we are ready by 2019, by 2030, by 2037 or by 9999, but I know that we will never get on Mars, if we do not start developing engines, centrifuges, radiation shields, etc. It looks like that they are not even trying to do that. They always just push the mission launch year 30 years to the future. Back in the 1980s, the launch year was 2019, few years ago it was 2030, now it is 2037. Always about 30 years in the future like with the fusion reactors and flying cars.

We (the whole world, not just NASA) should try to push TRLs up one by one in a sensible time frame (30+ years is hardly a sensible time frame). During Apollo program they did a wonderful development in such a short time frame and with the technology of 1960s! Imagine the computers of 1960s! Now we have computer power to simulate almost anything we want. Computers are developing incredibly fast, why not spacecraft s?

I hate it when they cut NASA's budget. :(

 

[Urvabara]

...

See also - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html

Moon, Mars and beyond - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/index.html

Thanks!

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Certainly all true, except for the returns part. Naturally, the real goal of the mission is to learn how we can safely leave our planet on longer journeys.

I mean, we'll eventually have to do that...

If Louis Bleriot had waited for jet technology, those poor Brits might still be stranded on their island.

 

[Urvabara]

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.

http://www.racetomars.ca/mars/marsRising/episode5.jsp
"But recent test results have not been good and designer Leonid Gorshkov at Russia’s Energia Space Corporation has decided parachutes are too risky. The Russians are experimenting with descent engines."

 

[D H]

You probably agree with me that the real development of a manned Mars mission should start right away?

NASA has already started. NASA is going to the Moon by 2020, not Mars. One reason for setting up a long-term base on the Moon is that doing so will address some of the issues associated with going to Mars.

The problem is that NASA's slow-and-steady plan is not what you and the Mars Society want. NASA is being realistic and working within the constraints of a limited budget. Being realistic means you don't base near-term human spaceflight activities on technologies that haven't even gotten off the drawing board. Being realistic means you don't sweep the immense number of issues that we know will be challenges for a human mission to Mars under the rug.

but I know that we will never get on Mars, if we do not start developing engines, centrifuges, radiation shields, etc.

What makes you think they aren't doing those things? Some of those papers you cited were funded by NASA.

There are some things that NASA is not doing. NASA is not looking into nuclear rocket engines for one simple reason: It can't. Nuclear propulsion is not in NASA's budget and has not been for a long time. NASA is not looking at a human mission to Mars for one simple reason: It can't. Congress has explicitly forbidden NASA from doing so for the past three years.

During Apollo program they did a wonderful development in such a short time frame and with the technology of 1960s!

NASA received 10% of the federal budget back in the 1960s. Now it receives about 0.6% of the federal budget.

 

[Urvabara]

What makes you think they aren't doing those things? Some of those papers you cited were funded by NASA.

I have seen some mission plans (2030+) from both ESA and NASA and they do not even mention centrifuges. In the pictures crew members are floating. That is why I assumed they do not even try to develop them.

I also know that both ESA and NASA are going to use chemical rockets. That is why I assumed they do not even try to develop other rocket engine technology. Somewhere I heard that ESA is not going to use nuclear rockets and you said the same about NASA.

Thank you all.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

But recent test results have not been good and designer Leonid Gorshkov at Russia’s Energia Space Corporation has decided parachutes are too risky. The Russians are experimenting with descent engines.

If a planet has an atmosphere, deceleration using parachutes is a weight-efficient method that is arguably "safer" than being dependent on an advanced retro rocket system. It is also lighter to build a double or triple redundant parachute system when compared to a retro rocket system including the fuel requirements (and double or triple redundant makes it heavier still). There is a reason all of the robotic Mars landers up to this point have used parachutes.

 

[LURCH]

Well, at least no one has voted for chemical rockets. Good, very good!

Ooops! Sorry about that, I voted before reading this reply. To me, the advantage for chemical rockets is that they exist. I prefer the use of exiting systems for spaceflight, because imaginary ones don't actually do anything.

I believe all of the problems of getting to and from Mars with chemical rockets (including gravity and radiation) have already been addressed by the http://http://www.thespacereview.com/article/65/1" plan.

 

[LowlyPion]

As a general observation what is the point of having any time constraint on a goal to go to Mars except perhaps impatience to want to know what's there and to know it now?

In the sixties the race to the moon seemed to be born out of the angst of the Cold War. The idea that the Russians would take over the moon was seen as not a satisfactory strategic option. If they had built bases and then in a military sense been operating from "higher" ground - at least that was the thinking as I recall - then they could have tremendous advantages. Our ability to retaliate if we were there first would have been supreme.

But now we know that the challenges of even getting to Mars and returning are so severe as to honestly wish anyone luck in even doing it - much less so to worry about someone setting up a military option there with any relevance to matters on Earth.

So why the rush? I'd say people will eventually get there and maybe even return and it will surely be an exciting event with a treasure trove of information confirming or expanding our knowledge about a number of things, but I surely see no rush priority on it with so many other more daunting challenges that are so much more relevant to more people than just the thirst for knowledge about the cosmos.

 

[Astronuc]

You probably agree with me that the real development of a manned Mars mission should start right away? I do not know if we are ready by 2019, by 2030, by 2037 or by 9999, but I know that we will never get on Mars, if we do not start developing engines, centrifuges, radiation shields, etc. It looks like that they are not even trying to do that. They always just push the mission launch year 30 years to the future. Back in the 1980s, the launch year was 2019, few years ago it was 2030, now it is 2037. Always about 30 years in the future like with the fusion reactors and flying cars.

We (the whole world, not just NASA) should try to push TRLs up one by one in a sensible time frame (30+ years is hardly a sensible time frame). During Apollo program they did a wonderful development in such a short time frame and with the technology of 1960s! Imagine the computers of 1960s! Now we have computer power to simulate almost anything we want. Computers are developing incredibly fast, why not spacecraft s?

I hate it when they cut NASA's budget. :(

The infrastructure used for the moon mission would be adpated to a manned Mars mission.

Goddard has a program on radiation shielding for astronauts.

There has been a lot of work already done on NTR concepts, and the Russian have done more recent work. Some funding came from NASA and some from DOE.

There are centrifuge concepts, and there are a lot of low budget studies done at various universities.

One might wish to look into the STAIF conferences that have been held in Albuquerque hosted by University of New Mexico, Institute for Space & Nuclear Power Studies, since 1983.


See also - http://www.iaass.org/