Manned Mars mission to Mars before 2020?

[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"However, the data on artificial gravity is a bit out of date.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.

 

[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.