New Mars Forums

I've generally assumed that the first few Manned Mars Missions would end up closely following Dr. Robert Zubrins Mars Direct plan one way or another.

With a crew of four, at most six on those missions.

I don't think with such a small crew and limited supplies and equipment that you could be expected to do any really invasive surgery during the mission.   How many trained people would it take to do surgery?

I would say three at least. 

And unless your trained surgeon is cross trained in numerous other scientific or engineering disciplines, he/she is likely to be pure deadweight on the mission if no medical emergencies arise.

For that matter, I doubt any signficant dental problems could be treated during a mission.  I suspect that all astronauts departing on a manned mission to Mars will have their teeth very thoroughly cleaned and any problems taken care of before hand.

A crewmember can probably be trained to do routine cleanings and checkups during the mission, but any serious tooth problems would probably have to be handled by extraction.

Thank goodness I got my log in fixed.  It took forever seemingly.

Astronauts chosen for a manned Mars mission will probably be away from Earth at least 2 1/2 years.

It occurred to me that it will probably be necessary to surgically remove the appendixes and gall bladders of astronauts prior to the mission even if healthy.

Because as far as I know, even a perfectly healthy appendix can go bad in less that a year or so.   And gall bladders are just one more thing waiting to go wrong.   With painfull gall stones.

Tonsils might have to be removed although thats less common these days.

Kidney stones could develop and of course, a healthy kidney should never be removed so astronauts would have to make sure they drank plenty of water and watched their diets.

But do you agree that the appendix and a few other potentially problematic but unnecessary body parts might have to be removed prior to leaving Earth just as a precaution?

I doubt even the most lavishly equipped early Mars Missions would have the facilities for major surgery.

This kind of legislation would kill the space program.   I haven't read the whole thread, but insisting on "reusability" for each mission will mire every program in the kind of development hell that is called the space shuttle.

Just what the hell is the point of reusability?  For Mars, at best you are only going every 26 months at most.  Just bolt together the simpliest stuff you can get by with an go.

How adaptable are Mars Direct mission concepts for longer range missions?  Such as a manned mission to Jupiter with a landing on Callisto.

Like launching a nuclear powered Earth Return Vehicle to land on Callisto and load up on fuel (hydrogen from the ice probably) for use for the return trip.

I envision a 12 man crew being sent on the 2 year or so journey to Jupiter in a module roughly the size of two of the Skylab stations.

The ERV that goes to Callisto first would actually be only a propulsion stage.  It would link up with the large hab module for the return trip.

Of course, the crew would explore Callisto and use telerobotics and sample returns to explore the other major moons, Jupiters atmosphere, and ring system.

Hows this for a lobbying effort for Mars Direct.

Why not have members of the Mars Society (I don't know how many members there are) each mail a copy of Zubrins "The Case For Mars" (along with a brief letter asking for Congressional support) to their Congressman and Senators.   Plus a dozen or so key people in the Executive Branch (President, Vice President and et cetera).

Each person in the Mars Society can probably afford a couple of copies of "The Case For Mars".

Alot of them would be discarded.  Alot would be of little notice.  But some Congressman WOULD read them.  Some congressional aids would read  them.

And the simultaneous arrival of 5,500 copies of the same book all arriving in Congressional offices would definitely get peoples attention and bring alot of attention to Dr. Zubrins plan.

In his book, "The Case For Mars", Dr. Zubrin explained clearly that private industry could probably launch a manned Mars mission for only 3 to 5 billion.

As Dr. Zubrin said, in the real world, you can buy a lot with a billion dollars.

I wonder if the government offered 10 billion dollars ( with whatever money they didn't use being pure profit) to the first company to put a manned team on Mars if a consortium of Lockheed/Martin, Boeing, and  few other large aerospace companies might be willing to give it a shot?

Of course it would be easiest to just send all male or all female crews initially.

I think it would be very unstable to the group dynamic to have a crew of four and have three men and one woman (or vice versa) over the two and a half years of the mission.

Or a six man crew with the four men and two women (and vice versa).

At any rate, I would insist that EVERYONE be prepared to the max with birth control just in case something did develop during an extended mission.   And if married couples were sent I would want precautions redoubled.

In "The Case For Mars" Dr. Zubrin makes it clear that his trajectories outbound to Mars involve the ease of turning it into a "free return" trajectory to simply whip past Mars and then be on the way back to Earth.

Of course it would still take nine months or so.

He has several other "alternate mission profiles" primarily involving possible Hab or ERV failures enroute.

As for the disposal of a dead crewmember.  At least while in space, I think that the dead crewman would be strapped to the exterior of the hab or ERV and remain their until atmospheric entry.  The vacuum of space would preserve the corpse personally for burial in Arlington National Cemetary.

I do think that Mars crewmembers will have to undergo some elective surgery before hand to reduce the chance of severe medical problems enroute.

For example, removal of appendixes and gall bladders.  As well as any dental surgery to correct ANY likelihood of dental problems or pain enroute.

And I believe that any female crewmembers should be using birthcontrol pills and a backup birthcontrol method.

That should be mandatory.

Ok Rob, I'll concede your points about the merits of the Energyia, but I won't concede them about the inadvisability of international cooperation.

I will also state this as a fact I believe in very strongly "The American peoples support for a Manned Mars Program will decline as the amount of international cooperation rises".  Americans have little love of international efforts.

Bringing in the Russians was supposed to reduce ISS costs but they actually increased as NASA had to hold up the staggering Russians.

And without strong American public support, there will be no manned Mars program.  Case closed.

Besides, why bother with international missions?  There isn't one piece of hardware or technology that is needed for a manned Mars program that can't be built by the United States and no other nation has the range of experience the U.S. has in manned space operations.

Sure the Russians stayed up in Mir for over a year, but boring holes through the sky has little relevance to a manned Mars mission.

I think the exploration of Venus will go something like this:

1) Large unmanned probes will land and take soil samples.  Using a nuclear reactor to heat carbon dioxide as propellant.

The probes will be capable of "jumping" using short bursts from its reactor powered engine. traveling to other locations several hundred meters away before returning to Earth.

2) When fusion propelled engines come into use, I can see properly shield manned missions will be able to orbit the planet at length and use advanced rovers telerobotically to explore.

3) Finally,  humans will land on Venus.  But not before powered exoskeletons are developed to carry the hundreds of pounds of  life support equipment necessary to keep a human alive under such conditions.

Such exoskeletons would allow for much higher detailed exploration.

Anyway, thats my opinion.

I'd like to interject a further note as to why reviving the Saturn V IS NOT inconceivable.

The Saturn V is man rated.  Ares, Shuttle-C, Magnum and Energyia ARE NOT.   I have serious doubts that the U.S. would ever willingly launch a manned crew on a launch vehicle that wasn't man rated.

Of course, you say, just launch a shuttle with a crew and rendevous in orbit.  Really, a one hundred million dollar shuttle flight for each Manned Mars mission just for taxi duty?

A hundred million here and there adds up quickly.

Finally, NASA shuttle managers might well say, "if we're launching a shuttle anyway, why not just launch the Mars mission with four or five shuttle launches and not bother with an HLLV?

So you see the appeal of a revived Saturn V.

The information about the uprated F-1s capable of 1.8 million pounds of thrust comes straight from "America At The Threshold" by the Synthesis Group.  A group of space experts who produced the intergovernmental publication after President Bush #41s ill fated Space Exploration Initiative was launched.

The booklet is available from used book sources online such as ABE Books.