Could a manned mission to Mars (and back) be done NOW!?
Discussion
ash73 said:
We didn't go to the moon with 1961 technology, his speech was followed by nearly a decade of intense R&D with an unlimited budget. The OP is asking about lift-off in 12 months.
Much of the basic technology used in Apollo had already been developed before 1961. Of course, quite a lot also had to be refined and improved before it could be used in moon missions.We have had almost 60 years of spaceflight technology since 1957 including over 50 years of exploring the space between the planets and the planets themselves. We know FAR more about Mars and how to get there now than we knew about getting to the moon in 1961.
I don't think we could launch a Mars landing mission within 12 months either - mainly because we haven't yet developed a reliable method of lowering larger objects onto the Martian surface. Curiosity is the largest object we've landed on Mars to date - and that has the same mass as a compact car. NASA is currently working on aero-braking and parachute systems that should be able to lower a habitat sized device onto the surface of the planet.
I am pretty sure we could, if we wanted to, send a manned mission to Mars within a couple of years, WITHOUT landing. Essentially, we could launch modules similar to the type that make up the ISS. Indeed, the Orion element of the SLS system is planned to be capable of such flights, to Mars, the moon and the asteroids.
So, plans are already afoot - even if the nay sayers still throw their objections about. It's not technology that stops us from doing things like this, it's political will and motivation.
ash73 said:
In that scenario why use water? Unless you can collect the water in space you might as well use lighter plastics.
You need something with enough mass/density to block the radiation (high energy protons/alphas/photons etc.)If you used light plastics as shielding, you would need a lot more of it, ending up with about the same mass as the water shielding.
I know it won't happen like this, but if you pre-prepare the landing site with all the kit they might need, then the return journey is irrelevant. Just select the right people who don't care about coming back.
And there are a surprising number of people who would volunteer for such a mission - and I'm not talking about nutters or suicide jockeys either. A couple of older former NASA astronauts have already stated that they would be very willing to take part in a one way mission to Mars - and they would look on it as the pinnacle of their spaceflight careers.
Eric Mc said:
Curiosity is the largest object we've landed on Mars to date - and that has the same mass as a compact car.
Is there a (probable?) reason why we can't just send everything needed in multiple crafts limited to the weight you mention? How many separate crafts limited to that sized mass would it take? (how many trillions of $ too!)Interesting stuff for sure!
Simpo Two said:
ash73 said:
Simpo Two said:
Where do you think all (well most of) that water goes...? It's a closed system.
If it's used for shielding it would be contaminated with radioactivity.https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23230-mars-...
Water 1 – Metals 0
The details of Inspiration Mars’s plans have yet to be clarified, but the team has said it will be using “state-of-the-art technologies derived from NASA and the International Space Station”.
One idea that is already under consideration by the agency’s Innovative Advanced Concepts programme, which funds research into futuristic space technology, is a project called Water Walls, which combines life-support and waste-processing systems with radiation shielding.
Water has long been suggested as a shielding material for interplanetary space missions. “Water is better than metals for protection,” says Marco Durante of the Technical University of Darmstadt in Germany. That’s because nuclei are the things that block cosmic rays, and water molecules, made of three small atoms, contain more nuclei per volume than a metal.
Water shielding also has another benefit – you can drink it. Such dual use is essential aboard a spacecraft, where space is at a premium. Applying this rationale, the Water Walls concept involves polyethylene bags that use osmosis to process clean drinking water from urine and faeces.
Pacman1978 said:
Eric Mc said:
Curiosity is the largest object we've landed on Mars to date - and that has the same mass as a compact car.
Is there a (probable?) reason why we can't just send everything needed in multiple crafts limited to the weight you mention? How many separate crafts limited to that sized mass would it take? (how many trillions of $ too!)Interesting stuff for sure!
I'm sure the problems of slowing and stopping larger craft in the Martian atmosphere will be solved in the next year or so.
We land small stuff on mars with a combination of parachute and inflated bags to bounce it.
This only works for very small things though, the curiosity rover needed something bigger and more complex ( the whole sky crane landing was quite complicated amazing it worked!).
We'd also need to land all this stuff close to where we are putting people down, that could be quite tricky with a non powered approach.
This only works for very small things though, the curiosity rover needed something bigger and more complex ( the whole sky crane landing was quite complicated amazing it worked!).
We'd also need to land all this stuff close to where we are putting people down, that could be quite tricky with a non powered approach.
RobDickinson said:
the whole sky crane landing was quite complicated amazing it worked!
Absolutely audacious and possibly one of the most amazing feats of science and engineering.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WX0CATyn8
RobDickinson said:
Simpo Two said:
ash73 said:
Simpo Two said:
Where do you think all (well most of) that water goes...? It's a closed system.
If it's used for shielding it would be contaminated with radioactivity.RobDickinson said:
We land small stuff on mars with a combination of parachute and inflated bags to bounce it.
This only works for very small things though, the curiosity rover needed something bigger and more complex ( the whole sky crane landing was quite complicated amazing it worked!).
We'd also need to land all this stuff close to where we are putting people down, that could be quite tricky with a non powered approach.
Quite a few landings on Mars have not used air bags. Viking, Phoenix and the Russian (failed) probes all landed using rocket thrust to cushion the landing. Air bags were used on Pathfinder/Soujourner and Spirit and Opportunity. A bag was also used on Beagle 2 but that probe also failed (as we all know). This only works for very small things though, the curiosity rover needed something bigger and more complex ( the whole sky crane landing was quite complicated amazing it worked!).
We'd also need to land all this stuff close to where we are putting people down, that could be quite tricky with a non powered approach.
The Martian atmosphere is too thin to allow a descent all the way to the surface using a parachute only. You must cushion the landing somehow - either using air bags or landing rockets.
The other problem is that the parachute has to be deployed when the probe is falling at supersonic speed. The technical problem that NASA is trying to solve is stopping the parachute from shredding when it is deployed at such high speeds. They ran a few tests in 2014 and 2015 which were only partially successful. However, I am sure they will sort these issues out.
When entering the Martian atmosphere, there are a number of phases during the descent.
The first phase involves using the heatshield and basic blunt cone shape of the craft as its own braking device. That only slows you down so much. You will still be very supersonic after that phase.
The next trick is to get the speed down a bit more. NASA are trialling "ballute" devices, which is an inflatable ring the increases the surface area of the descending craft and allows aero braking to slow it down even more. However, even after all that, due to the very thin atmosphere, you are STILL supersonic. This is where the chutes deploy.
Initially, a drogue is deployed (as always) to stabilise and extract the main chute. The main chute is then deployed in a semi-reefed state to get the speed subsonic. Once subsonic, the chute inflates fully.
After all that, the descent speed is still too great for the craft to land gently. The final phase will use rocket exhaust to lower the craft gently to the surface.
http://www.space.com/29602-nasa-flying-saucer-supe...
The first phase involves using the heatshield and basic blunt cone shape of the craft as its own braking device. That only slows you down so much. You will still be very supersonic after that phase.
The next trick is to get the speed down a bit more. NASA are trialling "ballute" devices, which is an inflatable ring the increases the surface area of the descending craft and allows aero braking to slow it down even more. However, even after all that, due to the very thin atmosphere, you are STILL supersonic. This is where the chutes deploy.
Initially, a drogue is deployed (as always) to stabilise and extract the main chute. The main chute is then deployed in a semi-reefed state to get the speed subsonic. Once subsonic, the chute inflates fully.
After all that, the descent speed is still too great for the craft to land gently. The final phase will use rocket exhaust to lower the craft gently to the surface.
http://www.space.com/29602-nasa-flying-saucer-supe...
Moonhawk said:
Absolutely audacious and possibly one of the most amazing feats of science and engineering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WX0CATyn8
You know I still don't quite believe that worked :-)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1WX0CATyn8
So many tiny bits had to work with perfect timing, pre-programmed and uncontrolled its just jaw dropping...
It gives me a lot of confidence that if NASA say they can land a Man on Mars then they will.
(I suspect there will be a Camera there to record the NASA landing- delivered by a SpaceX mission :-)
Yes, it's possible. I suspect every problem we face now is solvable if you put enough resource into it. You only have to look at the Manhattan project, or the recent Ebola crisis to see what can be achieved if we focus on one area.
As for getting to Mars you'd probably need to assemble the ship in space as I doubt you'd be able to lift the completed vehicle in one go. Thorium reactors are a possibility for propulsion, as are solar sails. All you need then are some volunteers and enough food to get them there, plus a suitable lander for when they get there.
As for getting to Mars you'd probably need to assemble the ship in space as I doubt you'd be able to lift the completed vehicle in one go. Thorium reactors are a possibility for propulsion, as are solar sails. All you need then are some volunteers and enough food to get them there, plus a suitable lander for when they get there.
Or an SLS.
The upgraded Block II SLS will be able to boost around 30 tons to Mars. Using (say) three SLS launches, you could assemble a Mars landing mission in earth orbit and then send the combined craft to Mars. The logic behind SLS is big lifting capability (lost when the Saturn V programme was closed down)
The restoration of this ability to lift large amounts into space on single launches is what will make a manned Mars mission possible.
You don't need any major new advances in propulsive technology to get to Mars. We can get there already (over 20 missions have been sent to mars since 1964/65). Of course, using chemical technology you are looking at a 9 month trip to the planet - but that is being factored into the planned missions and is one of the reasons why Scott Kelly has just come back (yesterday) from spending 12 months on the ISS. He has just set a new record for a non Soviet/Russian astronaut.
The Americans are keen to build up information of their own on long duration space missions precisely because they are looking ahead to manned Mars missions.
The upgraded Block II SLS will be able to boost around 30 tons to Mars. Using (say) three SLS launches, you could assemble a Mars landing mission in earth orbit and then send the combined craft to Mars. The logic behind SLS is big lifting capability (lost when the Saturn V programme was closed down)
The restoration of this ability to lift large amounts into space on single launches is what will make a manned Mars mission possible.
You don't need any major new advances in propulsive technology to get to Mars. We can get there already (over 20 missions have been sent to mars since 1964/65). Of course, using chemical technology you are looking at a 9 month trip to the planet - but that is being factored into the planned missions and is one of the reasons why Scott Kelly has just come back (yesterday) from spending 12 months on the ISS. He has just set a new record for a non Soviet/Russian astronaut.
The Americans are keen to build up information of their own on long duration space missions precisely because they are looking ahead to manned Mars missions.
Eric Mc said:
SpaceX aren't building the SLS. It's SLS technology that will get people to Mars.
I know, I was suggesting NASA would send a massive craft assembled in LEO by multiple launches to land at a designated destination to meet supply pods landed by multiple launches and the whole event will be stream live online.... by a camera nearby sent by a single SpaceX rocket :-)
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff