Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

[LURCH]

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

Yes, especially when we take Mars' thin atmosphere into acount. A parachute big enough to slow the crew evhicle down to a safe landing speed in that atmo might be heavier than rocket fuel for landing.

 

[Astronuc]

Nuclear Thermal Rocket Propulsion (possibly for a Mars mission)
Design Issues and Concepts
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/fulltext/nuke.pdf

There was also a discussion of a Mars bus, a vehicle that orbits between Mars and Earth on a fast and regularly scheduled transit. One speeds up, hops on the bus, zooms out to Martian orbit, and hops off. Return is the same.

 

[Herodotus]

12 years seems to be a bit too short considering the insufficient public or political interest in a visit to Mars in the next two decades.
Mars' atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth's, or what it would be like, 30 kilometers above sea level here. So, I don't even think engineers would consider a parachute in the first place.

 

[DaveC426913]

There was also a discussion of a Mars bus, a vehicle that orbits between Mars and Earth on a fast and regularly scheduled transit. One speeds up, hops on the bus, zooms out to Martian orbit, and hops off. Return is the same.

Buzz Aldrin (with John Barnes) wrote a science fiction novel called that used this technique. I do believe that the book was less a story than a vehicle for promoting the viability of the Earth/Mars shuttle concept to the public.

 

[D H]

Mars' atmospheric pressure is less than 1% of Earth's, or what it would be like, 30 kilometers above sea level here. So, I don't even think engineers would consider a parachute in the first place.

NASA has used parachutes or parafoils with all of its Mars landers -- Viking, the rovers, most recently with the Phoenix lander -- and use of parachutes/parafoils is a part of all envisioned human missions to Mars.

Mar's landing starts with an orbit insertion burn that aims the vehicle into Mar's atmosphere. The orbit insertion maneuver is quite small; Mar's atmosphere does most of the work in slowing the vehicle from nearly 10 kilometers per second to orbital speed (aerobraking/aerocapture) or less than 1 kilometer per second (direct entry). In the first case, Mar's atmosphere will be used again after an entry burn to slow the vehicle to less than 1 kilometer per second.

Using powered flight from the end of the entry phase to landing would require an incredible amount of fuel. Parachutes or parafoils are used to reduce the speed from a bit below 1000 meters/second to a hundred meters per second or so. Powered descent is needed, but only after the parachutes/parafoils have done the lion's share of the work.

 

[Dejael]

Originally Posted by redargon:

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.

Answer posted by Urvabara:
Then we have to wait forever. There will always be problems here on Earth. Why should we wait?

My reply:

Gentlemen, we already have many advanced programs in development in black ops classified project status at places like Area 51. In 1990, writer Tim Weiner wrote a book
in which it was stated that the typical annual expenditures for black budget programs was $600 Million or more. You can double or triple that figure in today's dollars. Some of those black ops projects have been made public since then, such as the ray beam cannon released to the public last year (with only its public application, at the lowest level setting of operation as public knowledge) as an example. We also have items like laser rifles, laser cannons, shoulder-mounted laser-targeting missile firing systems, and
invisibility cloaking devices and clothing, and many other items too exotic to mention here, and this is only a small part of the Pentagon's hidden arsenal. It's the tip of the probervial iceberg. GCNR NTR is a part of all this, but not the flavor of the moment. It would have to be red-flagged by someone with a TSC and asked to be moved up toward the top of the atomic pile.
Unfortunately, most of what the public sees when they look at NASA is a storefront operation, and whatever is PC for the current WH admin, with the public completely ignorant of the full scope of its activities. And NASA is distressingly under public scrutiny and the whims of the Bush agenda to do anything more than service the ISS,
and they can't even fulfill that simple operation without Russian aid.
The US Government wastes more money than anyone could spend in their lifetime, so the simplistic idea of doing for the poor, homeless and hungry masses instead of space travel R&D is incredibly naive in today's militant world.
As Lockheed Skunkworks boss Ben Rich once said to a news reporter, "They have things out there [at Area 51] that would make George Lucas drool!"
I say we lobby aggressively with Congress on Capitol Hill for the next several years and we will have our fusion-ion-GCNR Mars Mission by 2020. Hear hear!

 

[Dejael]

Originally Posted by redargon:

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.

Answer posted by Urvabara:
Then we have to wait forever. There will always be problems here on Earth. Why should we wait?

My reply:

Gentlemen, we already have many advanced programs in development in black ops classified project status at places like Area 51. In 1990, writer Tim Weiner wrote a book
in which it was stated that the typical annual expenditures for black budget programs was $600 Million or more. You can double or triple that figure in today's dollars. Some of those black ops projects have been made public since then, such as the ray beam cannon released to the public last year (with only its public application, at the lowest level setting of operation as public knowledge) as an example. We also have items like laser rifles, laser cannons, shoulder-mounted laser-targeting missile firing systems, and
invisibility cloaking devices and clothing, and many other items too exotic to mention here, and this is only a small part of the Pentagon's hidden arsenal. It's the tip of the probervial iceberg. GCNR NTR is a part of all this, but not the flavor of the moment. It would have to be red-flagged by someone with a TSC and asked to be moved up toward the top of the atomic pile.
Unfortunately, most of what the public sees when they look at NASA is a storefront operation, and whatever is PC for the current WH admin, with the public completely ignorant of the full scope of its activities. And NASA is distressingly under public scrutiny and the whims of the Bush agenda to do anything more than service the ISS,
and they can't even fulfill that simple operation without Russian aid.
The US Government wastes more money than anyone could spend in their lifetime, so the simplistic idea of doing for the poor, homeless and hungry masses instead of space travel R&D is incredibly naive in today's militant world.
As Lockheed Skunkworks boss Ben Rich once said to a news reporter, "They have things out there [at Area 51] that would make George Lucas drool!"
I say we lobby aggressively with Congress on Capitol Hill for the next several years and we will have our fusion-ion-GCNR Mars Mission by 2020. Hear hear!

 

[Alfi]

We also have items like laser rifles, laser cannons, shoulder-mounted laser-targeting missile firing systems, and
invisibility cloaking devices and clothing, and many other items too exotic to mention here, and this is only a small part of the Pentagon's hidden arsenal.

OMG ! really ? Invisible cloaking clothing?

I'm just having a tad of a problem believing that.

If I had to choose between peaceful exploration or developing better ways to kill each other...

Well, I would choose to give all the money to NASA.

 

[WhiteKnights]

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.

I disagree, You you think astronauts on Challenger or Columbia were thinking about science advancement or their selves when going into space?

 

[LowlyPion]

I disagree, You you think astronauts on Challenger or Columbia were thinking about science advancement or their selves when going into space?

I think you're confusing their bravery and adventurism with their ability to pay for it out of pocket. The value to science has a price tag. There's no reason to pay Nieman Marcus mark up for things you can get at Walmart.

 

[chayced]

CGNRs are a good way to go, but what about a Nuclear jet engine powered lander?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Nuclear_Propulsion
Any planet that has an atmosphere would work, and it could be used for the flight back. Of course you would need additional propulsion to get into orbit, but that would only take effect after you were effectively out of atmosphere and at a high velocity.

I still don't see the comparison to the Apollo missions. We could spend $500 billion on it, or we could just use a pencil in most cases. Sure technology would have to be created for this, but the amount of technology is trivial compared to what they went through to get on the moon and much of the technology we need could be converted from things that are now "off the shelf". It's not like we need to create a new kind of computer small enough to carry on board or we need to find a way to make a zero gravity toilet.

Columbia/Challanger were both great losses. Sometimes an industry needs a loss to get it's priorities straight. I just hope NASA has them there now.