Could a manned mission to Mars (and back) be done NOW!?
Discussion
How small a craft (for the astronauts) could we get away with? If I recall the habitable part of the iss was made from an unused rocket? could something that size or smaller do? If that could be landed (in one piece) could that also double as living space whilst on Mars?
(apologise for being so technical!)
Thank you :-)
(apologise for being so technical!)
Thank you :-)
The Curiosity rover is the largest object landed on Mars to date. It is about as big as you can get with the techniques currently used. It is the size of a VW Golf and weighs 900kg which is too small to carry even one person to the surface and carry enough provisions to keep them alive even for a short while. And then, of course, you need to be able to get the human back off the surface again.
The Apollo Lunar Module weighed 15,200 kg - and that was designed to keep two people alive for up to three days on the lunar surface. A Mars lander would be heavier than that because it would need a heat shield for atmospheric entry and it would need more powerful rocket motors, and more fuel, to cope with the stronger gravity of Mars.
The Apollo Lunar Module weighed 15,200 kg - and that was designed to keep two people alive for up to three days on the lunar surface. A Mars lander would be heavier than that because it would need a heat shield for atmospheric entry and it would need more powerful rocket motors, and more fuel, to cope with the stronger gravity of Mars.
rhinochopig said:
Voyage by Stephen Baxter is a good attempt at looking at the science of whether it can be done or not - spun into an alternative history sci-fi book.
It talks about reappropriating old rockets and kit for the voyage. Covers most of the topics discussed so far too.
Just finished reading it It talks about reappropriating old rockets and kit for the voyage. Covers most of the topics discussed so far too.
I enjoyed it - but the characters were all a bit grumpy. They should have had Mark Watney in the crew.
Eric Mc said:
Gosh - didn't know that.
Well you were explaining the time lag to Scubadude who I suspect like most are aware of such things. The reality is it doesn't make any difference unless you want to control devices, but by the time space Mining and Exploration really gets underway it will, in the main be undertaken by AI due to the very limitations of such delay along with cost control, risk and expense of humans being sent to such places.If you think about most deep sea exploration is done by robots and most systems are automated with a few scientists and a few engineers involved so why would space exploration need to be any different?
Eric Mc said:
SpaceX aren't building the SLS. It's SLS technology that will get people to Mars.
I'm sceptical of that, the SLS is a mess and NASA have no plans for a Mars mission at all, at least SpaceX both have workable plans for a big booster (and a bigger one) and a want to go to mars.RobDickinson said:
I'm sceptical of that, the SLS is a mess and NASA have no plans for a Mars mission at all, at least SpaceX both have workable plans for a big booster (and a bigger one) and a want to go to mars.
Interesting Elon Musk won't be blowing all his fortune (public estimate of $1.5Bn) compared to NASA's budget http://www.nasa.gov/content/reach-for-new-heights-... That said just like the Moon shot it was third parties that supplied the hardware to make it possible, the same thing is happening now except in this media focussed world instead of a corporate such as Boeing or Grumman you have a an individual with great engineers and scientists brought in from other agencies. Nasa is payrolling much of the new activity
"Each contract provides for a minimum of six flights for each company between the years 2016 through 2024. According to the space agency, the combined contracts are potentially worth up to $14 billion."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2016/01/15/n...
"Today, President Obama is proposing an additional $18.5 billion for NASA, building on the significant investments the administration has made in America's space program over the past six years," Bolden said. "NASA is firmly on a journey to Mars. Make no mistake, this journey will help guide and define our generation."
As much money as Elon Musk has he needs these contracts as do the other organisations to provide the hardware. So to say NASA does not have plans for a Mars shot is not really correct and Space X will only achieve it with backing and finance from the State via NASA, not from an individuals wallet.
Tell me I'm wrong guys..........
Toaster said:
Tell me I'm wrong guys..........
Your wrong. Nasa would like to go to mars. There is no plan. No design of a spaceship or lander, no project or budget to even look at it. All they have at the moment is plans for the SLS booster and no missions that require it.
Its costing them a fortune, they are even man rating it. Its a shuttle contractors dream.
By the time they have even 1 SLS ready to launch SpaceX will have a better and far far cheaper heavy booster.
Edited by RobDickinson on Wednesday 2nd March 18:56
RobDickinson said:
I'm sceptical of that, the SLS is a mess and NASA have no plans for a Mars mission at all, at least SpaceX both have workable plans for a big booster (and a bigger one) and a want to go to mars.
Aren't all rocket projects a bit "messy". SLS seems to be making progress so I do think it will happen. It would be madness to cancel it - especially after the cancellation of the previous Ares. I'd rather have a non-perfect programme than no programme at all.Eric Mc said:
Aren't all rocket projects a bit "messy". SLS seems to be making progress so I do think it will happen. It would be madness to cancel it - especially after the cancellation of the previous Ares. I'd rather have a non-perfect programme than no programme at all.
Oh it wont get cancelled, too much money(votes) invested in the contractors.I imagine they will build as many as they can with the spare SSME's they have but by then it will be so obviously unneeded it will get canned.
It does lack a concrete mission, which is a shame - but it's all about capability. Having a 100 ton to earth orbit capability opens up all sorts of possibilities. There are no similar category launchers in the pipeline as far as I know.
I think NASA are playing their cards close on this one - no stated grandiose ambitions, just playing the "get the rocket built first" card and THEN we can start stating what we will do with it.
I think NASA are playing their cards close on this one - no stated grandiose ambitions, just playing the "get the rocket built first" card and THEN we can start stating what we will do with it.
RobDickinson said:
Your wrong. Nasa would like to go to mars. There is no plan. No design of a spaceship or lander, no project or budget to even look at it.
All they have at the moment is plans for the SLS booster and no missions that require it.
Its costing them a fortune, they are even man rating it. Its a shuttle contractors dream.
By the time they have even 1 SLS ready to launch SpaceX will have a better and far far cheaper heavy booster.
Maybe, but no one has a design yet even space X is a bunch of illustrators drawings so who is going to pay for them to go to Mars and back? its going to cost $Bn more than they have and as far as there current program is concerned they have contracts that help pay for it. £1.5Bn is not going to get you to Mars and back I am not saying they will have no involvement I am saying they can't do it without Government backing and that will involve NASA. But then again Russia, China, India may beat them to Mars......who knows All they have at the moment is plans for the SLS booster and no missions that require it.
Its costing them a fortune, they are even man rating it. Its a shuttle contractors dream.
By the time they have even 1 SLS ready to launch SpaceX will have a better and far far cheaper heavy booster.
Edited by RobDickinson on Wednesday 2nd March 18:56
Eric Mc said:
There are no similar category launchers in the pipeline as far as I know.
SpaceX has plans for a 10m diameter 9 raptor engined booster for their Mars Colonial Transporter. Given the much smaller Falcon 9 heavy should lift 53,000kg it should be comparable to SLS and SaturnV's
Toaster said:
Maybe, but no one has a design yet even space X is a bunch of illustrators drawings so who is going to pay for them to go to Mars and back? its going to cost $Bn more than they have and as far as there current program is concerned they have contracts that help pay for it. £1.5Bn is not going to get you to Mars and back I am not saying they will have no involvement I am saying they can't do it without Government backing and that will involve NASA. But then again Russia, China, India may beat them to Mars......who knows
Given the premis of this thread is funds/resources are irrelevant thats an odd argument to make.As for funding it have you noticed how SpaceX is making money out of launching rockets? And going to make it cheaper by reusing them?
Elon and SpaceX are a new wave not weighed down with nasa bureaucracy and political shackles. They are fast and dynamic, have you seen the rate of change they are developing the falcon 9 with? How they have increased the boost capacity significantly over a very short time?
How the Falcon 9 heavy ( which should lift half the SLS capacity) comprises of 3 reusable cores - those cost somewhere less than $60mil each too. Once SpaceX get the reusability thing nailed they can out 50tons into orbit fore almost nothing in space terms.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff