I don't know if length is going to be the long pole item anymore now that we have years of ISS research under our belts. The biggest concern is going to be radiation shielding for the trip and the stay on the surface. Right now the technology isn't there, the shielding that will work is just too heavy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NASA's Mars Science Laboratory |OT| 2,000 Pounds of Science!
- Thread starter DrForester
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if length is going to be the long pole item anymore now that we have years of ISS research under our belts. The biggest concern is going to be radiation shielding for the trip and the stay on the surface. Right now the technology isn't there, the shielding that will work is just too heavy.
Wouldn't staying that long in space mess up your bone density? It doesn't seem safe.
ElectricBlue187
Member
one way trip is the only way that makes sense for the investment
LOL
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
With the right amount of exercise bone density loss can be minimized, but it's still a risk.
The more worrying idea is the prospect of going blind on long space trips.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/20/nation/la-na-blind-nasa-astronaut-20110921
SquiddyCracker
Banned
We need to jump-start Project Orion:
A ship that fast makes the trip a lot safer (if the nucluear bombs can be dealt with adequately).
A ship that fast makes the trip a lot safer (if the nucluear bombs can be dealt with adequately).
Today? No. Soon, yes. The speed with which their space program is improving is astonishing, and they don't seem to lack the political will to go to space.
The Long March 5 is supposed to be ready in 2014. They already have a temporary space station and seem to have mastered docking, so all that's left is a L.E.M. Their plan is to be on the moon by 2024, and it wouldn't surprise me if they made it.
This sentence makes our moon landing that much more impressive.
Damn. I wasn't aware of the risk of blindness. Why does the Universe make it so hard for us to Space travel?
Based on what frame of reference?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Damn. I wasn't aware of the risk of blindness. Why does the Universe make it so hard for us to Space travel?
The barrier to entry is set at a high level of difficulty in order to keep out noobs.
Damn. I wasn't aware of the risk of blindness. Why does the Universe make it so hard for us to Space travel?
Looks like our only option to survive space travel is to become cyborg.
All this talk of travel times, time spent stuck on the martian surface , return flight, food weight.
There's an enormous laundry list of problems needing solving.
Science fiction hour courtesy pachinko :
I'd say We'd first have to send a series of modular satellites to mars orbit, on their own they'd be capable of very little, when those successfully get over there over a series of a half dozen launches , we send a robot piloted center module to mars orbit, it collects all the satallite modules and when formed fully it becomes a mars orbiting dock , complete with surface supplies for an eventual manned mission (fuel, landing pod, etc).
At this point they send a shuttle to mars with at least 6 astronauts , these souls would eventually make it to mars and dock with the orbiter , go aboard it to obtain everything they need to make a landing , 2 people would stay behind on the orbiter while the other 4 make the landing mission. Back on earth , upon successful arrival at the mars dock NASA could send out the return flight capsule , this would carry emergency supplies and would arrive about the same time the astronauts should be leaving mars and essentially fuel their trip home.
The trip itself, in order to conserve as much energy as possible would need some sort of Prometheus style hyper sleep. I'm not sure where we are on induced human hibernation but that's kind of what I'm talking about, astronauts would be required to bulk up prior to the trip to 75 pounds fatter then usual and upon going through gravity loop around earth and the moon that would power their initial thrust towards mars 5 of the 6 astronauts would be placed in induced hibernation and every month another one would be awakened , relieving the original, the final 2 weeks of mars approach all of them would be awakened for mission co-ordination and exercising weakened muscles. While in hibernation mode the astronauts should only require minimal fluids , their bodies living off the excess stored fat instead of requiring new foods.
One element I didn't mention above- taking off from the martian surface, well... this is the diciest part if you ask me. Those reserve supplies would include martian launch tools and fuel , upon docking at the martian orbiter the 2 people left there would need to co-ordinate multiple drops in and around the martian lander base , these tools would allow the lander to be converted into a shuttle capable of holding all 4 astronauts as well as 100 pounds of samples , upon the likely treacherous successful ascent into martian orbit they would then need to be collected by the orbiter after which the final phase of the mission would commence- the return to earth, each of the satallites sent over initially would have a reserve fuel supply and of the 6, only 2 would be required to get the return to earth thrust required. A fail safe if you will , an updated computer program sent by nasa would allow the orbiter to drop off any excess weight and reach martian orbit escape velocity , if everything goes well at this point the astronauts make it back to earth orbit a few months later and promptly engage earth re-entry protocols similar to any shuttle , ocean pod landing of the past only this time they have a sack of mars rocks!
.. writing all that up it almost seems like more trouble then it's worth. Even a cheaper faster way of getting there where they simply do the same thing as the moon landings would simply be too messy for mars I think...
There's an enormous laundry list of problems needing solving.
Science fiction hour courtesy pachinko :
I'd say We'd first have to send a series of modular satellites to mars orbit, on their own they'd be capable of very little, when those successfully get over there over a series of a half dozen launches , we send a robot piloted center module to mars orbit, it collects all the satallite modules and when formed fully it becomes a mars orbiting dock , complete with surface supplies for an eventual manned mission (fuel, landing pod, etc).
At this point they send a shuttle to mars with at least 6 astronauts , these souls would eventually make it to mars and dock with the orbiter , go aboard it to obtain everything they need to make a landing , 2 people would stay behind on the orbiter while the other 4 make the landing mission. Back on earth , upon successful arrival at the mars dock NASA could send out the return flight capsule , this would carry emergency supplies and would arrive about the same time the astronauts should be leaving mars and essentially fuel their trip home.
The trip itself, in order to conserve as much energy as possible would need some sort of Prometheus style hyper sleep. I'm not sure where we are on induced human hibernation but that's kind of what I'm talking about, astronauts would be required to bulk up prior to the trip to 75 pounds fatter then usual and upon going through gravity loop around earth and the moon that would power their initial thrust towards mars 5 of the 6 astronauts would be placed in induced hibernation and every month another one would be awakened , relieving the original, the final 2 weeks of mars approach all of them would be awakened for mission co-ordination and exercising weakened muscles. While in hibernation mode the astronauts should only require minimal fluids , their bodies living off the excess stored fat instead of requiring new foods.
One element I didn't mention above- taking off from the martian surface, well... this is the diciest part if you ask me. Those reserve supplies would include martian launch tools and fuel , upon docking at the martian orbiter the 2 people left there would need to co-ordinate multiple drops in and around the martian lander base , these tools would allow the lander to be converted into a shuttle capable of holding all 4 astronauts as well as 100 pounds of samples , upon the likely treacherous successful ascent into martian orbit they would then need to be collected by the orbiter after which the final phase of the mission would commence- the return to earth, each of the satallites sent over initially would have a reserve fuel supply and of the 6, only 2 would be required to get the return to earth thrust required. A fail safe if you will , an updated computer program sent by nasa would allow the orbiter to drop off any excess weight and reach martian orbit escape velocity , if everything goes well at this point the astronauts make it back to earth orbit a few months later and promptly engage earth re-entry protocols similar to any shuttle , ocean pod landing of the past only this time they have a sack of mars rocks!
.. writing all that up it almost seems like more trouble then it's worth. Even a cheaper faster way of getting there where they simply do the same thing as the moon landings would simply be too messy for mars I think...
SquiddyCracker
Banned
That's what I was thinking ;D
Or I guess, some really advanced medical care on-board the ships/martian colony like stem-cells and whatnot.
Though it might not be a problem if you're only in for a four-week trip with nuclear explosive propulsion.
A lifetime of watching countries developing their space programs. India, a comparative sized nation, hasn't had much success with their space program. Neither has the EU, frankly. Japan's is interesting, but they aren't going big. China's put up a space station and done docking maneuvers with it in just the last two years, nine years after their first human orbit. The U.S. put up its first space station 12 years after their first orbit and the Russians did it in ten years. They have realistic plans for further exploration, and the heavy lifters to do it. I'm not sure what frame of reference one would have to be standing in to not see their performance as astonishing.
I'm not saying that China's progress is impressive in this era of space exploration...But compared to what the USSR and USA did in the 60s is far more astonishing when you consider the level of research and technology they were using compared to what China has available.
Getting to the Moon and back starting from scratch really puts anything to shame that China is doing. If they were going to Mars by 2024 instead...Then I'd personally be much more impressed.
Getting to the Moon and back starting from scratch really puts anything to shame that China is doing. If they were going to Mars by 2024 instead...Then I'd personally be much more impressed.
I would highly recommend everyone watch Robert Zubrin's Case for Mars speech if you already haven't:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg
This was devised back in 1992 and it is even more applicable now that the Falcon Heavy is within a year of being active. More than anything else, Zubrin's plan shows a sustainable and elegant plan for Martian missions that dismantles the notion that we need to return to the Moon before going on to Mars or that we need some form of advanced propulsion to get to Mars (like the VASMIR proposal). Finally, Zubrin's plan illustrates how a complete, long term mission could be designed on the cheap (relatively). It is important to keep the price of a mission in perspective. $50 billion dollars for a 10 year mission is only $5 billion per year of dedicated resources. NASA is spending roughly $3 billion per year on SLS/Orion when it only plans to fly the SLS once every year at a cost of $1.6 billion per flight (not to mention the lack of any real need for such a heavy lift vehicle). China plans to perform their lunar missions with rockets that would be less powerful than the Falcon Heavy and possible multiple launches for future Mars missions. The resources are definitely their for a manned Mars mission; the President, Congress, and NASA just need to have the joint vision and leadership to set an ambitious goal, fund the project, and let it happen.
TheNatural
My Member!
Is there a reason why we need to be on Mars over just a moon base though? Outside of the whole PR 'man has finally stepped on another planet' thing, why can't we just build up to this by working on the moon with a base? I don't get it.
Damn. I wasn't aware of the risk of blindness. Why does the Universe make it so hard for us to Space travel?
as humbling as it may be, we simply aren't designed (literally) to exist outside of Earth.
SpinningFrog
Member
There is also Vasmir:
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMR
It looks pretty spiffy, it has already had successful small scale tests.
There is one more, I remember reading about it a few months ago, but I seem to have forgotten what it is called.
Zubrin's zealotry is off-putting, but he's got some good ideas.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
Yeah, as nice as vasimir sounds, I think that thermonucluear propulsion is the only viable method of actually getting to mars.
It's also a good way to get rid of humanity's nuclear stock pile, which makes it a lot cheaper as well (as we've essentially been producing the "fuel" for over 50 years), but it still got some kinks to hammer out.
Cost-wise, a 100-m diameter with a pretty massive pay-load that can get up to 0.1C, would cost about $0.367 Trillion, or 1/10ths of the United States GDP for a year.
The ship itself would probably be cheaper than actually putting all that stuff in orbit (since launching it from earth would be ab ig no-no due to nuclear fall-out), as you'd have to rely on old fashioned chemical propelled rockets to get up as much as 100,000 metric tons of mass.
The Falcon Heavy of SpaceX has the best price/weight ratio of $2,204 per KG. So 100,000 metric tons, or 100 000 000 kilograms, would cost roughly $220 trillion.
That's a lot of cash, 60 years of the United States entire GDP.
So yeah, we need to develop some more price effective means of throwing stuff up there before Project Orion is financially viable.
It's also a good way to get rid of humanity's nuclear stock pile, which makes it a lot cheaper as well (as we've essentially been producing the "fuel" for over 50 years), but it still got some kinks to hammer out.
Cost-wise, a 100-m diameter with a pretty massive pay-load that can get up to 0.1C, would cost about $0.367 Trillion, or 1/10ths of the United States GDP for a year.
The ship itself would probably be cheaper than actually putting all that stuff in orbit (since launching it from earth would be ab ig no-no due to nuclear fall-out), as you'd have to rely on old fashioned chemical propelled rockets to get up as much as 100,000 metric tons of mass.
The Falcon Heavy of SpaceX has the best price/weight ratio of $2,204 per KG. So 100,000 metric tons, or 100 000 000 kilograms, would cost roughly $220 trillion.
That's a lot of cash, 60 years of the United States entire GDP.
So yeah, we need to develop some more price effective means of throwing stuff up there before Project Orion is financially viable.
NASA news conference today in about 45 minutes
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/aug/HQ_M12-151_Curiosity_Teleconference.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/aug/HQ_M12-151_Curiosity_Teleconference.html
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Digging NASA's jazzy phone-hold Muzac.
This is what I imagine plays during docking procedures~
This is what plays for 8 months on the way to Mars.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
Insane Metal
Member
Wow, you can actually see the different layers of soil in that picture... amazing! I REALLY hope we find something there!
Edit: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/676507main_pia16053-white-full_full.jpg
In te full size image you can clearly see the layers... and there's erosion on the rocks that looks absolutely like the ones we find on Earth, made by the presence of water. Wowow! I'm excited!
Edit: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/676507main_pia16053-white-full_full.jpg
In te full size image you can clearly see the layers... and there's erosion on the rocks that looks absolutely like the ones we find on Earth, made by the presence of water. Wowow! I'm excited!
Software boot is complete. Went without a hitch.
Bottom right dude did a really smooth high five-to-hug transition.
Stupid question, but why is the sand dark blue? what is it made of?
I believe that's an infrared image, so the colors aren't proper.
That's the Steltzner going to work. Like a boss.
Yeah, he's a little too aggresive about it, but that is a really good documentary about the problems and concerns of a manned mission to Mars. It is definately doable, and a lot of the concerns are just political excuses to block funding.
Yes!
Powdered Toastman
Member
Nope. Thanks for the link. It looks AMAZING.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Software boot is complete. Went without a hitch.
And yet, here on earth you are praying to all your gods that a firmware update in any device won't bricks it up ...
- Status