Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

comstar03 · 2004-10-05 19:59:45

GCNRevenger,

A proposed resources budget based upon a 100B per year pool would be as follows : 10B for earth-orbit developments, 15B earth orbit, 10B orbit-lunar surface, 25B lunar surface, 10B scientific research, 30B Special Projects.

Those sums of resources from the pool are loosely based on the functions required at the initial development stages. When the lunar surface is complete and orbit-lunar surface vehicles are complete, then a transfer of resources to Mars related projects moving 15+B towards that goal and including special projects will get to approx 45-50B per year excluding lunar resources being added to the pool.

To generate this resource pool per year is a global based private industry corporation / group of corporations / consortium. It can be done, you just need to look at what is required and where to find the resources and then alliance or acquire those resources.

Statement

" All Issues / Problems have Solutions / Answers , you need only to implement them "

A way to live by and work within !!!!

Martian Republic · 2004-10-05 21:18:54

comstar03,

I can see that we have similar ideas, except on finances it.

Your going to try and do it with private financing and I'm going to do it with government financing. Other than that, it looks like we both are figuring about two generation to do anything serious on Mars. The first generation or about 20 years or so will be building several space station, the moon bases with manufacturing plants, shuttle fleet, Lunar shuttle fleet and a local Earth & Moon fleet. On this part of the issue, we both appear to be on the same page other than minor differences.

But, our line of attack on Mars is a little different though. I have a more focused plan for Mars than you have. Beside wanting to establish a base on the Moon base, it also being establish for the purpose of going on to Mars. Like I intend to set up a skunkworks with our base on the Moon, but I like the number of over 1,000 and preferable about 10,000 people. With the technology we have right now, it doable and any new technology that we develop in the future.

But, plan for the next 20 to 30 years as the Mars development period. But, use the 20 years that we are developing the Moon to plan the Mars Colony and the type of ship that we want to build that can make that trip and how big we want that colony to be once we get there. I believe that we should develop shielding to protect the people inside the space ship. I we should give up on the rotation end of the problem and choose a different strategy. I think we should be looking for generating gravity by having a one G execration to the half way point and then turn our space ship around and the one G deceleration on the other half the trip to Mars. If we can develop such a ship for humans for going to Mars, we solve several problems at the same time and they are:

1. We don't have to worry about the launch window of where Mars is in relationship to where the Earth is. we don't have to wait two years between when we can go to Mars or come back to Earth.
2. Travel time to Mars or Earth would be between one week and two weeks travel time.
3. It would limit the exposure to harmful radiation because of the shorter time in space.
4. Weightlessness would not be a problem either and medical problems that accompany weightlessness.
5. We either don't need as many ships to do the job or can do more with what ever ships that we do choose to build.

That means that we would have to develop fusion power and put it on a crash program development so we will have that technology available to us in 20 years when we intend to build our Mars space ships. We would also want between three to six of those space ship that could carry maybe 20 to 30 people apiece. Right here is where we differ with each other.

But, like I said our views are similar to each other.

Larry,

Grypd · 2004-10-06 05:50:08

If we want to see if artificialy spinning a ship on a tether will create gravity in which a Human will feel reasonably comfortable then we should try it. But using Soyuz or progress modules is a no go for a start they are not designed for having gravity in the first place. You can hardly stand up in one and that is the point we need to see if normal human movement will work and also that prolonged human occupation is a go'er in that enviroment. So we need an alternative and in this new enviroment of allowing small industry to access space we should give this job to. Bigelow.

Yeah I know, but his habs can inflate and as such we can fit both habs needed into a smaller rocket and simply installing ion engines should provide the motive force to accelerate and slow down. It would also give a chance to actually see how effective these inflatable structures are and as his cost estimates to get habs working is cheaper than the "heavy" alternative and this era of shrinking space budgets it has to be done as cheap as we can get it.

Grypd · 2004-10-06 06:12:30

If we want to go to space we must show a real need to do so otherwise when it comes down to it we will never get anything really done that we want. Appollo was a showboat and as such when it accomplished its mostly propoganda mission it was closed down. When we return to space we have to do something that really can benefit the people of earth and we mean financially as at the moment we do not as a collection of space advocacy groups have enough public or political clout to be able to push through an agenda to get space back into the public life as it was in the 1960's.

Mars will remain a dream as long as we have the budget we are dealing with each day and it is a smaller budget comparitive each year. To colonize mars we will need a means to get there and currently with or technology this will cost too much. Battlestar Galactica class of colonisation ships will remain a dream if they are launched from Earth and will still be horribly expensive if made from lunar/asteroid materials. We are limited to doing small steps and going back to the Moon is a good one but it will be better if we can return material to Earth that is in short supply here and is a material that we need to be able to develop new technologies that support or increase our quality of life. Currently the two such materials we see are Helium3 and platinum group materials. It is all to do with energy you see. As our dependance on fossil fuels increases and our supplies thin out then the prices of these resources increases and the alternatives which require an expensive degree of change become more and more interesting to commercial exploitation.

Helium 3 is a mainstay of fusion as it allows a type of fusion that we think can be a) the most efficient for energy production b) easier to maintain and start as we do not need incredible magnetic fields to actually try to keep the reaction focused c) its cleaner radioactivally

Platinum group metals are rare on Earth as the resources we mostly get them from in South Africa is an Old meteorite impact crater and as such we are already tapping space resources. We need platinum group metals to be able to create a new form of economy other than the oil based one we have this being the hydrogen based economy, But we need platinum for a lot of other things as well it is the material we need to make the expensive filters to reduce greenhouse emissions and the supply of these metals is drastically running short as the mines are played out.

So if we can show to the American buisness and political community that getting to space and sending these back will benefit the good old USA then we will get the will to go back to space and allow the infrastructure creation that will allow further advances into space. These further advances will be simple spin offs of our new industrial capacity in space.

And yes im Scottish but my own country cannot do it but the USA can and should.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 08:09:49

University of Western Ontario researchers are studying how to prevent astronauts from going blind during deep space flights. McMaster University doctors are preparing to take part in a project geared to medicine in space.

Canadians at forefront of space research
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet....nt

BWhite · 2004-10-06 08:35:52

Zero gee for extended periods is bad for people. We do not need "research" at ISS to prove that.

If we simulate gravity by spinning we need a large diameter to minimize the rpms needed to generate 3/8ths gee.

Spinning faster on on a short axis creates Coriolis and differential gravity if your hab has more than 1 story or level.

The ideal is as long an axis of rotation as possible with as few rpms as possible. This is balanced against eth size of the vessel and the length of any tether or boom.

Rigid trusses have advantages but add weight.

To rotate the entire vessel will need either a VERY big ship or spinning VERY fast. Both bad ideas.

BWhite · 2004-10-06 08:41:21

If we want to see if artificialy spinning a ship on a tether will create gravity in which a Human will feel reasonably comfortable then we should try it. But using Soyuz or progress modules is a no go for a start they are not designed for having gravity in the first place. You can hardly stand up in one and that is the point we need to see if normal human movement will work and also that prolonged human occupation is a go'er in that enviroment. So we need an alternative and in this new enviroment of allowing small industry to access space we should give this job to. Bigelow.
Yeah I know, but his habs can inflate and as such we can fit both habs needed into a smaller rocket and simply installing ion engines should provide the motive force to accelerate and slow down. It would also give a chance to actually see how effective these inflatable structures are and as his cost estimates to get habs working is cheaper than the "heavy" alternative and this era of shrinking space budgets it has to be done as cheap as we can get it.

I would =VERY= much prefer to spin a Bigelow inflated hab in preference to a Soyuz/Progress tandem.

My main point is that doing a Soyuz/Progress tandem or a Progress/Progress tandem is VERY inexpensive (relatively speaking) since the launch costs have already been fully paid for in the ISS budget.

Two Progress spinning for 18 months followed by tether recovery would allow examination of tether wear issues.

= = =

Related to my main point is the observation that we are spending $$$ now to launch Soyuz and Progress. Using them is not ideal but it goes give additional research "bang" for those bucks already spent.

Let the tether companies pay the incremental costs to allow testing and fine tuning. If they can subsidize their tests by adding a Discovery Channel cam to the Progress? Well, good.

Grypd · 2004-10-06 08:52:56

Tether ware can be better tested on Earth than in space as it does not take anything more than a centrifuge and weight which can be simulated on earth reasonably easy.

Testing artificial created centrifugal forces to see if they work on Humans can though only be done in the prescence of zero g. If we plan to have Humans in long term habitation of such a structure it requires to be of a reasonable size so as to allow them the chance to move and do useful science related tasks. Incidentally it would be the perfect way to test a Mars semi or direct mission Hub and any improvements put in place for the actual mission vessels.

It would also allow the space advocates who wish for O'Neill type stations to be made to try out in real experimentation a real such station. And Bigelow has always wanted to create such a station made of inflated modules attached to a frame so as to allow his space tourists to have a decent sleep at nights before playing in zero g again

SpaceNut · 2004-10-06 13:53:42

Well the Italian astronaut Roberto Vittori maybe returning to the International Space Station (ISS) for a second time in March-May 2005.

This will give an opportunity to examine multiple exposures to 0g with regards to the same subject.

http://en.rian.ru/rian....alert=0

C M Edwards · 2004-10-06 14:51:06

To get to Mars in a week, you'd need to accelerate at nearly Mars surface gravity - 0.3 G's. That's not possible. But one month of accelerating at 0.003 G's might be done if you had the right electric propulsion. It would require some really big engines, but the crew quarters could be reduced to a tiny little speck.

PS: I wonder if we can replace the capsule egress with a sardine can key? Think of the mass savings. :;):

Martian Republic · 2004-10-06 16:32:42

To get to Mars in a week, you'd need to accelerate at nearly Mars surface gravity - 0.3 G's. That's not possible. But one month of accelerating at 0.003 G's might be done if you had the right electric propulsion. It would require some really big engines, but the crew quarters could be reduced to a tiny little speck.

PS: I wonder if we can replace the capsule egress with a sardine can key? Think of the mass savings. :;):

I'm fully aware of the fact that we don't currently have the technology in hand to make a trip to Mars in one week. That why we putting it on our wish list of technologies that we need to develop. It will probably take twenty years to develop the technology and build the ships that could go that fast and so we want to make it national goal or mission to develop that technology. That how we advance civilization and develop culture that generally improve live.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-10-07 20:31:03

It appears that bone loss will soon be a thing of the past if all goes right. Article has lots of details into how fast and what percentage. Inaddition talks of what else are issues as seem with long duration flights in reduced to 0g levels.

Drug may keep astronauts' bones strong
Annual injection could allow prolonged space missions.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/ … 04-14.html

Commodore · 2004-10-07 20:34:55

It appears that bone loss will soon be a thing of the past if all goes right. Article has lots of details into how fast and what percentage. Inaddition talks of what else are issues as seem with long duration flights in reduced to 0g levels.
Drug may keep astronauts' bones strong
Annual injection could allow prolonged space missions.
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/ … 04-14.html

It's a start, but they lose muscle mass as well, which is just as important.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-11 05:52:55

Well the russians are at it again with regards to the planning stages for any future mars missions at least where the human aspect of it is concerned.

Russia Plans 500-Day Mock Mars Mission
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/russi … 41011.html

Russian space researchers will lock six men in a metal tube for more than year in an effort to mimic the stresses and challenges of a manned mission to Mars.
The 500 Days experiment, under development by the Russian Institute of Medical and Biological Problems, will isolate human volunteers in a mock space station module for -- as its namesake suggests -- a complete 500 days to study how a long mission to Mars might affect its human crew.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-10-11 06:46:00

With a little help from the victorians it seems.

Polyakov told Interfax reporters that the 500 Days experiment will not include female volunteers.

I assume that means the *first* experiment will not. They'll have to test such interaction sooner or later, because NASA will be lynched if they send off an all male crew to Mars.

Hmm. Wouldn't it be interesting though if women of 'less than perfect moral stature' proved more capable of surviving in such conditions than tight-arsed conservatives? In such circumstances, would NASA go with what worked, or what would be politically popular?

ANTIcarrot.

Palomar · 2004-10-11 08:11:43

Well the russians are at it again with regards to the planning stages for any future mars missions at least where the human aspect of it is concerned.
Russia Plans 500-Day Mock Mars Mission
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/russi … 41011.html
Russian space researchers will lock six men in a metal tube for more than year in an effort to mimic the stresses and challenges of a manned mission to Mars.
The 500 Days experiment, under development by the Russian Institute of Medical and Biological Problems, will isolate human volunteers in a mock space station module for -- as its namesake suggests -- a complete 500 days to study how a long mission to Mars might affect its human crew.

*Just saw this at space.com, and checked this thread to see if someone had already posted it. Will be very interesting to follow this, especially the psychological factors. Can't help wondering if NASA will throw its hat into the ring. Hmmmmm.

Good luck to the participants!

--Cindy

P.S.: Will they have a mock simulation as well of windows to look out of, including the ability to see simulated stellar objects similar to what one would be able to see during an actual flight? I don't think they should exclude that in the simulation. Article doesn't go into much detail, just "locked in a metal tube" (gulp).

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-11 08:26:55

A major factor can't be included in the simulation. There's a world of difference between "I'm locked in this can with these jackasses, but we're going to Mars!" and "I'm locked in this can with these jackasses! Dammit, this sucks! Why did I volunteer for this crap?" :angry:

People have endured long voyages for centuries, let's just go.

clark · 2004-10-11 08:45:13

I'll say, there was this one trip I took with my family one summer, I was like, "are we there yet?" And my father was totally ticked off by about the 400th iteration of the same question. I looked out the windows, but all I saw was some cows, ducks, rabbits, squirrels, posums, geese, elk, deer, owls, hawks, and the occasional midget. I saw dead versions of all the above too, well, excpet for the midget.

Maybe NASA can set up a metal tube and lock up their astronauts, and the Russians can lock up their cosmonauts, and see who can stay in there the longest. Maybe they can only be allowed to talk to one another, to mimic two missions that have to depend on only themselves, but are also competing against one another to land on Mars first! They could goad one another and call each other names. Maybe even some of them would cry.

That would be so cool.

Rxke · 2004-10-11 10:30:22

Sure, and post the 'gentle conversations' on the intarweb... And cause major political upheaval

Just imagine what they would throw at eachother after several months of 'I can insult you better' excercise...

Anticarrot: you sure NASA would send a mixed crew the first time? I seriously doubt that...

Commodore · 2004-10-11 15:29:47

Are we trying to plan a space mission or or make the next reality show? ???

Commodore · 2004-10-11 15:33:28

Anticarrot: you sure NASA would send a mixed crew the first time? I seriously doubt that...

Can you imagine the feminist uproar if they didn't?

I guess that means we'll have to have the token black guy too. Wearing a red shirt....

Ad Astra · 2004-10-11 18:23:56

It will be interesting to see how the study group reacts to the all-male environment. Perhaps they will all agree with each other, complaining about their mutual lack of women for 500 days.

clark · 2004-10-11 18:28:18

Or perhaps not. 500 days in cramped quarters with women?

I likea good murder mystery now and then, but this is rather straight forward, no?

Women have a habit of causing discord in the midst of men. Perhaps our token woman might care to comment? :laugh:

Sailors of old had a good reason to believe that women were bad luck on a ship to sea...

comstar03 · 2004-10-12 03:40:10

Clark,

It depends on the command structure onboard and the roles for each crew person takes. I don't think the inter-relationships between men and women are issues / problems. That is what a command structure is their for, anything that can effect the crew, mission can be seen within the chain of command and creating relationships will onboard must be given approval by command. You may think this is harsh but necessary for the early missions.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-10-12 03:58:15

Women have a habit of causing discord in the midst of men.

Maybe the token woman on board should have sex equally p with all the men then?

I suppose gay men won't be allowed either? Better keep the blacks and jews away too. After all, you wouldn't want to upset one of your fine upstanding white male christian good-old-boy astronauts.

If NASA follows that kind of thinking all the success in the world wouldn't save them from the backlash.

ANTIcarrot.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-10-05 19:59:45

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#77 2004-10-05 21:18:54

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#78 2004-10-06 05:50:08

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#79 2004-10-06 06:12:30

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#80 2004-10-06 08:09:49

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#81 2004-10-06 08:35:52

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#82 2004-10-06 08:41:21

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#83 2004-10-06 08:52:56

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#84 2004-10-06 13:53:42

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#85 2004-10-06 14:51:06

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#86 2004-10-06 16:32:42

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#87 2004-10-07 20:31:03

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#88 2004-10-07 20:34:55

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#89 2004-10-11 05:52:55

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#90 2004-10-11 06:46:00

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#91 2004-10-11 08:11:43

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#92 2004-10-11 08:26:55

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#93 2004-10-11 08:45:13

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#94 2004-10-11 10:30:22

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#95 2004-10-11 15:29:47

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#96 2004-10-11 15:33:28

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#97 2004-10-11 18:23:56

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#98 2004-10-11 18:28:18

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#99 2004-10-12 03:40:10

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

#100 2004-10-12 03:58:15

Re: Long duration Human space missions - Can we survive them?

Board footer