Could a manned mission to Mars (and back) be done NOW!?

[MartG]

Simpo Two said:

RobDickinson said:

Those sums dont take into account getting back off the ground though, which would be more expensive for Mars, and anything you need to go up you also need to boost from earth...

Hence the enthusiasm to make fuel from rocks... but I've never quite grasped how.

The rocks contain water, though usually chemically combined to form various compounds - crack the water out of the rocks, electrolyse to get hydrogen and oxygen which you then liquefy to use in your rocket

[MartG]

Prior to Kennedy's speech in September 1962 the moon landing mission was in a very similar state to the current Mars mission - the basic technology was being designed and tested but there were limited budgets and no firm timescale. The Block 1 Apollo spacecraft was being developed for Earth orbit missions - early designs even lacked the docking tunnel - with launches planned atop Saturn 1 rockets. Construction of a lunar craft in Earth orbit was the envisaged plan, using Saturn C-2 or C-3 rockets to launch the larger components, and at the then current funding levels first landing wasn't really expected until the mid 1970s at the earliest.

While I'm fairly certain that even given unlimited funding and political backing we couldn't get a man on Mars a year from now, I think we could do it in the seven years the Apollo project took from Kennedy's speech to Apollo 11's landing.

I'm also fairly certain that to be successful we'd need to cut the journey time as much as possible by using NERVA type nuclear engines for the interplanetary journey - in the 1960s development of these engines had reached a point where they were ready for testing in space so getting them ready to fly within seven years should not present too many technical difficulties ( political/environmental protests would be a different matter though ).

Mars landing would be difficult, with taking off again being even harder even if the fuel is produced locally.

[Eric Mc]

The story of pre-May 1961 Apollo is not that well known i.e. the Apollo programme before Kennedy committed the US to landing a man on the moon before 1970. It's usually glossed over or ignored completely in TV and film documentaries on Apollo.

In the 1980s I bought a NASA book on Apollo that covered the programme between its setting up in 1959 and the settling on the design of the first version of the Apollo Command and Service module - later referred to as the Block I design. It was a very different programme to what eventually transpired.

[Toaster]

MartG said:

I think we could do it in the seven years the Apollo project took from Kennedy's speech to Apollo 11's landing.

I'm also fairly certain that to be successful we'd need to cut the journey time as much as possible by using NERVA type nuclear engines for the interplanetary journey - in the 1960s development of these engines had reached a point where they were ready for testing in space so getting them ready to fly within seven years should not present too many technical difficulties ( political/environmental protests would be a different matter though ).

Mars landing would be difficult, with taking off again being even harder even if the fuel is produced locally.

If Trump gets in Dream on...and don't say Space X as they get thier funding mainly from the government...................http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/donald_trump_on_nasa_space_is.html

"You know, in the old days it was great," Trump responded, according to The Washington Post. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes.

"You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money," he said.

The statements aren't the first Trump has made about NASA and space exploration taking a back seat to domestic matters if he's elected. In October, Trump was asked about NASA's plan to send men to Mars in the 2030. He responded: "Honestly, I think it's wonderful; I want to rebuild our infrastructure first, OK?"

[RobDickinson]

If America stopped spending more than the rest of the world combined on their military perhaps they would have less potholes?

[Catatafish]

It's a bit weird that most nations collaborate on projects like the LHC, but when it comes to space missions, national pride seems to prevent the collaboration that would make it affordable.

[RobDickinson]

Catatafish said:

It's a bit weird that most nations collaborate on projects like the LHC, but when it comes to space missions, national pride seems to prevent the collaboration that would make it affordable.

There is a lot of collaboration, ISS is a big collaboration.

[MartG]

Toaster said:

If Trump gets in Dream on...and don't say Space X as they get thier funding mainly from the government...................http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/donald_trump_on_nasa_space_is.html

"You know, in the old days it was great," Trump responded, according to The Washington Post. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes.

"You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money," he said.

The statements aren't the first Trump has made about NASA and space exploration taking a back seat to domestic matters if he's elected. In October, Trump was asked about NASA's plan to send men to Mars in the 2030. He responded: "Honestly, I think it's wonderful; I want to rebuild our infrastructure first, OK?"

Like many of Drumpf's statements it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - putting a load of highly trained scientists and engineers out of work isn't going to help the US economy one bit

[xRIEx]

RobDickinson said:

Catatafish said:

It's a bit weird that most nations collaborate on projects like the LHC, but when it comes to space missions, national pride seems to prevent the collaboration that would make it affordable.

There is a lot of collaboration, ISS is a big collaboration.

Exactly. I believe NASA pays the Russian space agency to ferry their astronauts to and from the ISS.

[Toaster]

MartG said:

Like many of Drumpf's statements it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - putting a load of highly trained scientists and engineers out of work isn't going to help the US economy one bit

Im not arguing but just pointing out Trumps view and you tell me how Scientists get treated, even in this country the only thing we seem to respect in business is costs cuts, finance directors and selling our businesses to the highest overseas bidder our main manufacturing business is building houses that have no sustainable energy sources built in and the minimum of insulation the builder can get away with. So what makes you think that Scientists are valued over profit and cost !

If you have never seen this film you should http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

[scubadude]

MartG said:

Mars landing would be difficult, with taking off again being even harder even if the fuel is produced locally.

In the long term perhaps we will produce fuel on Mars but for sure the first trips will have to either take it with them or send it in advance- that introduces the issue of repeatable landings within a small landing area, which might be "fun". No ones wants to be riding a rocket powered lander flying straight towards several portable rocket fuel storage tanks and try to land close but not on them!

[Eric Mc]

SpaceX are planning such landings for earth.

[Catatafish]

xRIEx said:

RobDickinson said:

Catatafish said:

It's a bit weird that most nations collaborate on projects like the LHC, but when it comes to space missions, national pride seems to prevent the collaboration that would make it affordable.

There is a lot of collaboration, ISS is a big collaboration.

Exactly. I believe NASA pays the Russian space agency to ferry their astronauts to and from the ISS.

Yes but on topic - the mars mission just seems to be Nasa... what about the indians, chinese. If all the big players joined forces, we'd have a base there in short order.

[Eric Mc]

The NASA mission to Mars will involve using the SLS booster and the Orion spacecraft. The Service Module part of the Orion is a development of the European Space Agency's ATV Space Station supply craft. So, already, there is an international aspect to the NASA Mars plan. I'm sure more overseas elements will come on board as the mission is refined.

[Simpo Two]

MartG said:

Simpo Two said:

RobDickinson said:

Those sums dont take into account getting back off the ground though, which would be more expensive for Mars, and anything you need to go up you also need to boost from earth...

Hence the enthusiasm to make fuel from rocks... but I've never quite grasped how.

The rocks contain water, though usually chemically combined to form various compounds - crack the water out of the rocks, electrolyse to get hydrogen and oxygen which you then liquefy to use in your rocket

Yebbut - the law of thingy says that you will use more energy to do that that you will get from the end product. So you may as well just take what you need, than 'smash up a boat to make a raft'

[xRIEx]

Simpo Two said:

MartG said:

Simpo Two said:

RobDickinson said:

Those sums dont take into account getting back off the ground though, which would be more expensive for Mars, and anything you need to go up you also need to boost from earth...

Hence the enthusiasm to make fuel from rocks... but I've never quite grasped how.

The rocks contain water, though usually chemically combined to form various compounds - crack the water out of the rocks, electrolyse to get hydrogen and oxygen which you then liquefy to use in your rocket

Yebbut - the law of thingy says that you will use more energy to do that that you will get from the end product. So you may as well just take what you need, than 'smash up a boat to make a raft'

But if that input energy can be gathered from the sun via solar panels, then you don't have to carry it with you.

[M4cruiser]

MartG said:

Mars landing would be difficult, with taking off again being even harder even if the fuel is produced locally.

This is the bit that concerns me - how to get enough fuel to Mars to enable getting a return flight up to escape velocity. It's a fair bit bigger than the moon (!).

Look at the size of a Saturn V rocket needed to get the moon return trip's stuff out of the earth's grasp. It would take a few of those to get significant fuel up there. I'm not good enough with a calculator to work it out, but it seems mighty tricky to me.

[MartG]

M4cruiser said:

This is the bit that concerns me - how to get enough fuel to Mars to enable getting a return flight up to escape velocity. It's a fair bit bigger than the moon (!).

Look at the size of a Saturn V rocket needed to get the moon return trip's stuff out of the earth's grasp. It would take a few of those to get significant fuel up there. I'm not good enough with a calculator to work it out, but it seems mighty tricky to me.

That's why we'd really need to produce fuel from Martian resources for the return trip

[RobDickinson]

A Mars Ascent Vehicle would be the biggest single item sent to the Mars surface for sure, estimates are 18-22 tons of vehicle with a need for around 33 tons of fuel.

You need about 4m/s delta v to leave Mars , it has lower gravity and far less air resistance.

SO far we are planning to make the fuel on Mars as sending it from Earth or even landing it on Mars is tough. I assume like The Martian we'd do this far in advance of sending people so its all ready to go before we have humans there.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151002-...

[Simpo Two]

xRIEx said:

But if that input energy can be gathered from the sun via solar panels, then you don't have to carry it with you.

That's a point, but the amount of energy some portable solar panels can generate compared with the amount of energy needed to get a spacecraft off the ground and beyond escape velocity seem many orders of magnitude apart to me.

RobDickinson said:

SO far we are planning to make the fuel on Mars as sending it from Earth or even landing it on Mars is tough. I assume like The Martian we'd do this far in advance of sending people so its all ready to go before we have humans there.

I like that. Like polar base camps. Then of course you just have to land next to them...!