Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

[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/

 

[Urvabara]

Thanks. Good info.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It seems to me that trying to figure out how to fit the biggest centrifuge possible on one rocket is a rather inefficient way to go, as there are many designs that could be assembled in space from pieces. The ISS for example has been assmebled from modules launched in many space launches, a similar construction plan could be applied to a Mars mission.

One simple example of a centrifuge that could have a large center of rotation without being a large cylinder or torus could be two equally weighted bodies (perhaps a crew habitat on one side, equipment for Mars landing on the other) attached together by a tether. Set up propulsion systems on each body that can fire in opposite directions and you can get them spinning about the middle of the tether. This would be a weight efficient option when compared to a large torus or cylinder, and could achieve larger radii of rotation easily, limited mainly by navigation logistics and the strength of the tether.

 

[LURCH]

That is exactly the solution described in the Mars Direct proposal. I think it's the best paln for artificial gravity.

 

[FredGarvin]

I think we should make a space elevator to Mars.

I would be interested in seeing just how controllable and stable a two body system like that would be. The only disadvantage I could see is that there would be no easy transport between the two (unless your idea of a tether is a really BIG tether).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The only disadvantage I could see is that there would be no easy transport between the two (unless your idea of a tether is a really BIG tether).

True, but if you put stuff you didn't need until you arrived at Mars on the other side, you could just leave it be until you are orbiting Mars, and then stop the ship from spinning and dock the two modules together again.

 

[Astronuc]

Some useful information to consider when planning a mission.

Moon mass - 7.3490×10²² KG (0.0123 Earths)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Mars mass - 6.4185×10²³ KG (0.107 Earths)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/marsfact.html

 

[Astronuc]

It is the season of such challenges for the Ares I crew launch vehicle (CLV), the replacement for the space shuttle. Three years ago, the release of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) gave NASA engineers a road map for the new crewed launcher, its first in nearly three decades. Atop the craft would be the crew exploration vehicle (CEV); below a cylindrical service module. The CEV, named Orion, would serve as Ares I’s primary payload. The craft would come in two variants: a six-person version for flights in LEO to the space station, and a four-person version to go to the Moon and back.

. . . .

Soon after taking office as NASA’s administrator in 2005, Mike Griffin ordered an agency-wide study aimed at defining the specific configurations and overall capabilities of the spacecraft , launch vehicles, and facilities that would encompass Project Constellation, the plan for replacing the space shuttle fleet with a partially reusable spacecraft .

The vehicle would be capable of sorties to the ISS and crewed missions beyond Earth orbit, first to the Moon and then to Mars. For the launcher, ESAS looked at existing designs, clean-sheet all-new approaches, and some combination of the two. Detailed trade analyses examined existing evolved expendable launch vehicles, foreign carriers, and different versions of shuttle-derived solutions. The primary emphasis was on designing a launcher that could meet Constellation mission objectives and provide man-rated powered flight while minimizing development time and, above all, cost.

from http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/images/articleimages/pdf/Seitzen-Ares%20I_JUL2008.pdf - use 'save target as'.

For those interested in Aerospace & Aeronautical Engineering and Science, I strongly urge one to join AIAA - www.aiaa.org It will keep one up to date with developments in aviation and aerospace, as well as provide contacts with people doing the research and development. AFAIK, students get a reduced rate for membership.

 

[Dale]

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.

Cool . I didn't know that. Do you have any links or the name of the project?

Good to know that at least some of my tax dollars are being used well!

 

[Urvabara]

It will not happen within a decade. If you are very young, this technology might be ready before you die.

What is "very young"? 40? 30? 20? 10? 5?

I wonder if I am young enough to see a) the first tourist flights to Mars or b) the first manned mission to Mars?

 

[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.

The parachute will be very large. Very much larger than any parachute ever constructed.

I have never trusted parachutes very much. They are prone to rip or to get entangled.

Recent studies seem to agree with this.