NASA NASA: We're sending humans to Mars

[marcus]

Maybe if genetic modification be done so that GM humans can retain their bone and muscle strength in low gravity, they won't need any special precautions to take while in a place where gravity is stronger. They might also need a secondary blood pumping system to pump blood down so that the heart can pump it up ,this might solve the problem mentioned by Astronuc...

Thanks for the comment. I found your summary of the health hazards associated with low gravity very helpful. Ceres 3% gravity is certainly a serious problem.

But as far as is known Ceres is second only to Earth in having the most water of anybody in the inner solar system. From its known density, the outer icy mantle is thought to be around 100 km thick. With only a thin crust of rock and dust covering it. As a major water resource orbiting at 2.8 AU from sun, with escape velocity some 500 m/s (making it comparatively easy to land and take off) it's likely, I think, to play a significant role in human history.

I checked http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/orbits/fulltraj.jpg (google "where is dawn now?" ) and the remaining distance is about 500 thousand km, or about 3.39 thousandths of an AU.
If all goes well it will be in orbit sometime in early March.

I googled "dawn journal" and saw that the mission director and chief engineer Marc Rayman has posted a December 29 entry which gives a lot of background on the dwarf planet.
http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov/2014/12/29/dawn-journal-december-29/
http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov

 

[Astronuc]

Mars mission: Could US girl, 13, be first on red planet?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29516432

Alyssa is studying science and several languages and became the first person to attend all three of Nasa's world space camps. Her call sign at the US space agency is "Blueberry".
The teenager from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, says failure is not an option. And her father says he has the next 20 years of work planned out.

The needs to be a lot of infrastructure in place for a trip to Mars. It doesn't need to be one way.

The propulsion systems need to be developed. An on orbit station should be put in place in advance of a crew arriving.

One concept that was kicked around about 30 years ago was a large magnetic launch system from LEO, or GEO. Basically there would be a substantial thrust system to hold the launcher in place, and a long enough launcher to get a craft up to a reasonable velocity, at a tolerable acceleration. The system is more or less a large recoilless rifle, based on a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) system.

The problem however is cost. It costs a lot to put a kg in LEO, and more in GEO.

 

[Loren]

They always say that.

Then the political wind changes...

 

[mfb]

And her father says he has the next 20 years of work planned out.

I hope he has good alternative plans as well.

An on orbit station should be put in place in advance of a crew arriving.

Do we really need an orbiting station (=life-support and so on)? The astronauts have to arrive with(in) a fully functional station that can support them for a long time, and it is reasonable to use the same station to go back (and if astronauts stay in orbit they can use it the whole time). They will need some sort of station on the surface and supplies in orbit for the way back. Both can (but do not have to) be sent there in advance.

 

[Loren]

I hope he has good alternative plans as well.

Do we really need an orbiting station (=life-support and so on)? The astronauts have to arrive with(in) a fully functional station that can support them for a long time, and it is reasonable to use the same station to go back (and if astronauts stay in orbit they can use it the whole time). They will need some sort of station on the surface and supplies in orbit for the way back. Both can (but do not have to) be sent there in advance.

For one thing, I am thinking that the astronauts will not be spening a lot of time on the surface due to all the perchlorate in the soil. That stuff is a nasty, dusty, toxin that will be hard to keep out of the crew quarters. At least it is going to be challenging dealing with that stuff and that may limit the number of times they perform EVAs.

Having a service module that is already awaiting in advance of the crew could increase mission flexibility, supplies, and return fuel. A lot of resources will be required just getting down to the surface and back into Martian orbit.

 

[mfb]

For one thing, I am thinking that the astronauts will not be spening a lot of time on the surface due to all the perchlorate in the soil. That stuff is a nasty, dusty, toxin that will be hard to keep out of the crew quarters. At least it is going to be challenging dealing with that stuff and that may limit the number of times they perform EVAs.

Having some gravity is good for the health and the astronauts might be able to use some ressources from Mars there. Also, controlling robots is easier if you are close to them - in an orbit, you frequently lose connection if you don't have multiple relay satellites.

Having a service module that is already awaiting in advance of the crew could increase mission flexibility, supplies, and return fuel.

How? Where is the advantage of having that orbiting there in advance, compared to attaching it to the station where it (a) can be monitored or even repaired if necessary (b) can be used as emergency backup if something goes wrong on the way to Mars (c) can be part of a shielding concept (d) provides more space for the crew?

A lot of resources will be required just getting down to the surface and back into Martian orbit.

Sure.

 

[Loren]

Having some gravity is good for the health and the astronauts might be able to use some ressources from Mars there. Also, controlling robots is easier if you are close to them - in an orbit, you frequently lose connection if you don't have multiple relay satellites.
How? Where is the advantage of having that orbiting there in advance, compared to attaching it to the station where it (a) can be monitored or even repaired if necessary (b) can be used as emergency backup if something goes wrong on the way to Mars (c) can be part of a shielding concept (d) provides more space for the crew?
Sure.

One simple scenario is that two ships do not need to carry identical cargo. While one ship may carry crew another can carry provisions. One ship is configured with a lander. The second is configured to carry additional life support materials and/or instruments. Remember, only the crew capsule must return to Earth, so a unmanned supply ship does not need fuel and provisions for a return trip. Again, this means more provisions can be taken on the first ship than can be stored on the crew module's ship.

Secondly, while the crew capsule transit time needs to be as quick as possible, there are no such constraints on an advanced unmanned ship. The unmanned ship can be launched at one launch window and the crewed capsule could follow on the next available window, which is probably 1 to 2 years later.

This means that you have some flexibility in the mechanism the first ship uses to reach Martian orbit, such as taking a lower energy transit, saving fuel which can be traded for provisions.

I am sure there would be other advantages. The real question is whether the additional costs and risks of a second ship is outweighed by those advantages. I can't say, but a two ship approach does expand the opportunities and options for a manned mission versus a larger single ship - if not at least something for our minds to ponder.

Unfortunately, I feel somewhat pessimistic about the whole space program.

I remember the last launch of the Space Shuttle. We were out walking our dogs when it launched and I looked North to see the vapor trail as it ascended (we live about 25 miles south of the launch pad).

The vapor trail was highly scattered, shifting left and right due to different wind directions at different altitudes, but the end result was this trail that violently twisted one direction, then the next multiple times as it rose into the sky. I remarked to my girlfriend that I wish I had brought my camera as this parodied the direction of NASA - being politically pulled one direction then to the next...

 

[mfb]

One simple scenario is that two ships do not need to carry identical cargo.

No one said that.

Remember, only the crew capsule must return to Earth, so a unmanned supply ship does not need fuel and provisions for a return trip.

Yes this is obvious. We are talking about the way to Mars.

While one ship may carry crew another can carry provisions. One ship is configured with a lander. The second is configured to carry additional life support materials and/or instruments.

You can stick them together, with the advantages listed above.
You can save delta_v if you give the spacecraft many years for the trip, right - then you have to deviate significantly from a Hohmann orbit. That is an advantage, yes.

I can't say, but a two ship approach does expand the opportunities and options for a manned mission versus a larger single ship - if not at least something for our minds to ponder.

It is certainly an option, I just do not see why this "should be" (Astronuc).

 

[Loren]

...I just do not see why this "should be" (Astronuc).

Okay. I just don't see why is "shouldn't be" either.

 

[Jupiter5]

This is a one way trip,they will not be able to return to Earth ever.

 

[mfb]

This is a one way trip,they will not be able to return to Earth ever.

Why?
NASA plans to get the astronauts back.

Forget the idea of the TV show, that won't fly.

 

[mheslep]

that won't fly.

Ba-dump-bump.

 

[Jupiter5]

mfb

people are already working on developing habitat on Mars,and they are very well aware it's one way trip ( according to their statement: after exposing themselves for a long period of time on mars,their bodies will be engendered after returning on Earth)
P.S. no clue about TV show

 

[mfb]

NASA is definitely planning a two-way trip and I don't know any government plan (world-wide) working on a one-way trip. If you disagree, please provide a reference for a one-way trip plan.
The plans usually include a few months on the surface to use Hohmann orbits both ways to save fuel, which gives a total mission duration of about 18 months.

Two astronauts have spent more than a year non-stop in space, with the record being 437 days in zero gravity. ~500 days including a few months at ~1/3 g are certainly possible.

 

[mheslep]

Two astronauts have spent more than a year non-stop in space, with the record being 437 days in zero gravity. ~500 days including a few months at ~1/3 g are certainly possible.

With 50% of that time (or so) in Earth's shadow from the sun and all of it in the Earth's ionsphere. A trip to Mars will not enjoy those earthly reductions in radiation.

 

[Jupiter5]

mfb , Where did these two astronauts spent their time in space? May I have reference too?

Here is mine :

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html

 

[mfb]

Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Ph.D., and Paul Davies, Ph.D., (seriously, who puts PhD titles in papers?) don't have the money to make it happen and no space agency picked up that idea as far as I can see.

The two astronauts were Sergei Avdeyev (379 days) and Valeri Polyakov (438 days).
Then we have Vladimir Georgiyevich Titov and Musa Manarov with 365 days each, Yuri Romanenko with 326 days, Sergei Krikalev with 312 days and Valeri Polyakov (again!) with 240 days. List
Another 1-year mission for two astronauts is planned on the ISS this year, starting in March.

 

[berkeman]

NASA is definitely planning a two-way trip and I don't know any government plan (world-wide) working on a one-way trip. If you disagree, please provide a reference for a one-way trip plan.

He may be thinking about the recent stories about Mars One: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/tech/mars-one-final-100/index.html

 

[Jupiter5]

mfb, there is a difference of staying inside a space station and staying on another planet ( check,how long they practiced their spacewalks, only measured in hour/minute time) , thank you for reference

 

[Jupiter5]

He may be thinking about the recent stories about Mars One: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/tech/mars-one-final-100/index.html

berkman ( it's she :) )

here is a link :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html

it is very interesting article , her is a part of it :

AFER
One-way would actually be safer for the astronauts than round-trip, Zubrin maintains. "All of the risk associated with the return flight—taking off from Mars, interplanetary flight, then entering [our atmosphere] and landing on Earth—are no longer in the mission," he says.

"I think people would be standing in line to do this."
The interplanetary-flight part includes prolonged exposure to zero gravity, cosmic radiation, and perhaps solar flares. Doubling these impacts, proponents stress, could leave returning astronauts more susceptible to contracting cancer or other illnesses down the road than if they'd remained in secure habitats on Mars.

 

[dragoneyes001]

Hello Mhes,
Water is valuable. Mars is comparatively dry and rocky, largely hardened volcanic residue. I would say it would be thankless job to bore tunnel into most places on Mars.

With Ceres, I am assuming (we will know more soon) that there is a thick outer ice layer that one could essentially melt a tunnel into. Not like boring into rock.

With a source of energy, to make heat and light, one could have several LAKES in ice caverns on Ceres. One lake might be home to aquatic life.

Another lake might be used for cooling the settlement's power plant.
====================

²

a few problems arise with an ice settlement one being they CRACK natural ice has a tendency to do that a lot not only to shift but from surface tension changes.
ever hear a lake cracking? its loud very loud sometimes it can rival thunder if the ice is thick enough when it cracks. living within a structure deep in Ice could be a very loud place enough so to make living there not tenable.

the other problem with ice is it could be in some way toxic or full of biological's not friendly to humans.you can always sterilize rock it'd be hard to do with ice.

 

[mfb]

He may be thinking about the recent stories about Mars One: http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/tech/mars-one-final-100/index.html

That is the TV show I meant.

mfb, there is a difference of staying inside a space station and staying on another planet ( check,how long they practiced their spacewalks, only measured in hour/minute time) , thank you for reference

Staying in a station on a planet is better than staying in a space station in space because you have some gravity. Sure, the astronauts would work outside, too, but not the whole time.

You are comparing random blog entries to NASA plans? Sorry, that does not work.

 

[mheslep]

As there are more than a few disaffected people that depart civilization to live, and occasionally die, in cabins in remote regions, I also think many could be found to go one way to Mars. I also don't think such a collection speaks in favor of the idea.

 

[Jupiter5]

mfb,the references used in the above posted link are :

Aldrin, Buzz with David Noland. 2005. "Buzz Aldrin's roadmap to Mars—a PM exclusive." Popular Mechanics, December 14, 2005.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/moon-mars/2076326

Chang, Kenneth. 2010. "NASA gets new orders that bypass the moon." The New York Times, September 30, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/science/space/01nasa.html

Davies, Paul. 2010. "A ticket to Mars, please. One-way is fine." The Sunday Times, March 27, 2010.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7078019.ece

Kennedy, John F. 1961. "The decision to go to the moon: President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 speech before a joint session of Congress."
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html

McLane, James C. III. 2006. "'Spirit of the Lone Eagle': An audacious program for a manned Mars landing." The Space Review, July 31, 2006.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/669/1

Schmidt, Stanley and Robert Zubrin, eds. 1996. Islands in the Sky: Bold New Ideas for Colonizing Space. Wiley.

 

[Jupiter5]

Here is an excellent link from NASA about questions asked about human mission on Mars
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/marsplanning/faqs/

Q: How long will a mission to Mars last?
http://www.nasa.gov/templateimages/images/common/faqplus.gif Answer:

Earth's and Mars' orbit around the sun allow for an opportunity to embark to Mars about every 26 months. There are two scenarios for going to Mars and returning to Earth. The first requires astronauts to remain on Mars for only a few weeks before returning. The second scenario will see astronauts spending over a year on the Red Planet. The overall mission duration ranges from about a year to close to three years.

Q: Is NASA planning to establish a permanent settlement on Mars?
http://www.nasa.gov/templateimages/images/common/faqplus.gif Answer:

NASA has conducted several studies on the feasibility of establishing a permanent settlement on Mars. At this time, we are not looking to implement such a plan. We will be in a better position to evaluate such a plan after we have perfected the ability to go to Mars and return safely, as well as ensuring that we have the technology to create the necessary resources while on the Red Planet to survive.

Q: When will the first human mission to Mars be?
http://www.nasa.gov/templateimages/images/common/faqplus.gif Answer:

NASA currently is working to build the systems to take astronauts beyond low Earth orbit. NASA is working to meet the President's goal to send humans to Mars in the 2030s. We are developing the technology we will need and designing safety measures to protect our astronauts from the harsh environment beyond low Earth orbit.

the rest of the Q & A are on the link

 

[mfb]

We will be in a better position to evaluate such a plan after we have perfected the ability to go to Mars and return safely[/color],

To summarize: All plans with money behind them include a return-trip. And I don't care about speculations from others as long as they have no way to get funding.

Based on that, I think the claim "This is a one way trip" is not right, especially as the topic of this thread is the NASA plan.

 

[Jupiter5]

To summarize: All plans with money behind them include a return-trip. And I don't care about speculations from others as long as they have no way to get funding.

Based on that, I think the claim "This is a one way trip" is not right, especially as the topic of this thread is the NASA plan.

mfb,you were writing about astronauts,I was writing about civilians in future colonies; the same statement form NASA is about returning trip for astronauts,not people who are future Mars residents. The idea about colonies on the other Planets is old as almost as an existence of humans. NASA and other space agencies are very well aware that the idea will take a long long time. So,I did not claim one-way trip for astronauts.