Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

[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.

 

[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.