If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

GOM · 2002-05-02 12:06:20

How many years would it take us to put a man on Mars?

Could it be done within 10 years, assuming a reasonable budget was allowed and we ran into no major glitches?

Anton Kuratnik · 2002-05-02 13:45:47

I guess so. 10 years minimum, but I'm afraid no one's going to do that. So as a representative of the "new generation", I'm afraid if I ever go to Mars I'll be 40 years old by then.

Omer Joel · 2002-05-03 08:14:07

A manned Mars mission in 10 years for now is pretty optimistic. While we could possibly do it with current tech, the problem would be funding (30 billion $ for a bare-minimum Mars Direct project). Hopefully, as technology will advance, this will become cheaper, but I usually think of the 2030's as when a manned Mars mission would be likely to occure.

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-03 12:23:11

...I'm afraid if I ever go to Mars I'll be 40 years old by then.

Of course, the average age of all active astronauts and cosmonauts with at least one orbital mission under their belts is probably something close to this...so don't feel too bad!

Canth · 2002-05-03 13:41:50

I would like it if I could have the chance ot only to go to mars but see people living there and participate in that process. When I am getting old I want to see maturing colonies off of earth not brand new ones. The mars society is trying to jump some of the cheaper and more time consuming technological burdens now so that a future mission will take less time to develop. Sad that so few are doing much of anything. Perhaps China's entrance onto the manned space seen will spur space development in other countries (espeially the U.S.) including a mars mission. It is expected that China will launch the first flight of its relativly ambitios space program next year. They plan to put up a space station and send manned missions to the moon and (eventually) mars.

GOM · 2002-05-04 11:42:40

For my part, 10 years is too little. Consider that the ISS, the current priority, won't be completed by 2005. Then we have Mars Sample Return. Then devlopment of the rocket, the rover, the habitats, mission planning, crew choosing & training... Mid-2020s is more likely.

I agree, if things continue to drag along they way they are now....

I was just wondering if it would be possible to speed things up, let's say by some dramatic discovery on Mars.

Could it be done within 10 years, if we had the motivation and the money?

Phobos · 2002-05-04 13:02:44

I don't think there are really that many technical hurldles in the way of getting to Mars in the way of propulsion and life support technology. I think the only thing we'd really need to do a lot of additional research on would be on adding some kind of artificial gravity and how the trip could affect the human body. Other than that and money I can't think of any
serious impediments to sending people to Mars. I hope Canth's opinions about the Chinese spurring on more space development pans out. The entrance of China into space might be just thing that motivates a manned drive to Mars.

Omer Joel · 2002-05-05 04:19:09

As far as I see, the main thing delaying the Mars program is budget constrains; We have the technology to launch a "Mars Direct" plan in 2011 or even earlier, but unfortunately no one (that is, no government, corporation, organization or any combination of them) has yet allocated the budget for such a project (About 30 billion US$ for a bare-minimum Mars Direct program, or 50 billion US$ for NASA's design reference mission). All the technology required by such a program already exists, or could be derived from current technology. The only problem is in getting the governments to finance it...

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-05 13:55:29

What do you say about China going to Luna in 2005 and having a base set up by 2010? Don't you think that'd compell Americans to be interested in space again? Especially if by at that time we have a democratic president.

Personally, I think, if China says they can go to the moon in 2005-2010, we can certainly go to Mars tomorrow!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-05 19:26:32

I can't imagine the Chinese getting to the Moon by 2005; they'll be doing well to get someone into LEO by next year.
Of course, the Chinese aren't as squeamish as we are about human life (with monstrous overpopulation, they can't afford to be). So, if they're saying they'll have a man on the Moon by 2005, maybe they're only thinking of a one-way trip!! (Just kidding! ).
I remember back in the late 60s and the 70s there were dark rumours that America wasn't the first nation to get a man to the Moon; they were just the first to get one home again! (The idea being that the Soviets weren't prepared to release news about the cosmonauts they sent to the Moon, but who never made it back.)
But getting back to the proposed Mars landing and all the delays, I was wondering whether it is actually possible to fast-track the whole thing, or not. I know it's important that we have some idea of whether the regolith on Mars is potentially toxic, but do we absolutely have to bring back a chunk of it to find out? Returning a sample of Mars by robot is obviously a very tricky thing; it may actually require more technological prowess than sending people there in the first place!
Surely it can't be that hard to send a relatively inexpensive automated mini-lab (a la Viking), scoop up a few ounces of Mars dust, and analyse it in-situ. Once we know its consistency, and its constituents and their proportions, we can create very realistic pseudo-Martian regolith here on Earth in large quantities and carry out tests to evaluate its effects on spacecraft materials and humans alike.
A suitably miniaturised device could hitch a ride on one of the scheduled Mars probes in the NEAR future, thus obviating the need to waste time, money, and scientific resources on the technological tour-de-force required for a sample return.
I'm beginning to slip into my paranoia-mode over all this procrastination on NASA's part and imagine that, for some deep dark reason, they're dragging their heels deliberately! Their apparent lack of direction and their monumental dithering for so many years seem to be beyond incompetence and look more like part of a plan. You just can't make so many bad decisions by mistake, can you?! And this sample-return hurdle they've plonked down in our path, looks to me like just one more excuse to push a manned mission into the dim and distant future for no good reason.
Ignoring my frustration and mental instability (! ), does anyone have any input into this idea of mine to circumvent a sample-return mission?
???

GOM · 2002-05-06 10:15:36

I'm beginning to slip into my paranoia-mode over all this procrastination on NASA's part and imagine that, for some deep dark reason, they're dragging their heels deliberately! Their apparent lack of direction and their monumental dithering for so many years seem to be beyond incompetence and look more like part of a plan. You just can't make so many bad decisions by mistake, can you?! And this sample-return hurdle they've plonked down in our path, looks to me like just one more excuse to push a manned mission into the dim and distant future for no good reason.

Well....

I hate to feed your paranoia, but it looks like "they" are doing their best to scare off any manned missions to Mar.

* * * * *
Source: National Research Council (http://www.nationalacademies.org/nrc/)

Date: Posted 5/6/2002

Dangers On Mars Require Extensive Evaluation Before Human Exploration Could Proceed

When NASA's Mars Pathfinder landed on the Red Planet in 1997, it released a rover that monitored the landscape, recorded weather conditions, and broadcast pictures of the surface to Earth. Presently, there is no official date or funding for a human mission to Mars, but the knowledge gained from the Pathfinder and other missions would contribute to plans for eventual human exploration of the planet. Before astronauts can take the first steps on Mars, however, much research needs to be done to guide mission planners and hardware designers.

A new report from the National Academies' National Research Council outlines the environmental, chemical, and biological hazards that NASA needs to assess before sending a human mission to Mars.

The agency's robotic engineering and design program should be expanded to develop larger rovers specifically for human use in exploration and surface transport, the report says. To ensure a safe landing and to aid rover and human movement on the planet, NASA should develop an accurate high-resolution, three-dimensional map of the terrain that would be explored, and assess the land's makeup to determine its strength and stability. In addition, when a spacecraft lands on Mars, soil and dust might be brought in through the air lock, which occurred during the Apollo missions to the moon. Potential contamination of the astronaut habitat while on the martian surface could pose a health hazard to the crew. For example, dust could contain high concentrations of sulfur and chlorine, compounds that could degrade human lung tissue if inhaled and corrode equipment.

There is also uncertainty as to the quantity of toxic metals, such as hexavalent chromium, in the soil. While small amounts of these metals may not affect the astronauts immediately, they could have long-term effects, such as cancer. Robotic sampling of soil and airborne dust could determine the presence and extent of any harmful organisms or compounds. If certain experiments, such as testing for chromium, cannot be conducted on the Mars surface, a sample must be returned to the Earth for evaluation.

Although chances are slim that life exists on the planet, NASA must identify zones of minimal biologic risk to humans through unmanned missions, using organic carbon detection techniques or by analyzing a sample returned to Earth. At the same time, NASA needs to implement a series of safeguards to protect the Earth from potential contamination when the missions return from space.

NASA and its international partners plan to send data-gathering robotic missions to Mars every two years until 2011 to study the environment, climate, and geology, and to determine if life ever arose on the planet.

This study was requested and funded by NASA. The National Research Council is the principal operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. It is a private, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter. A committee roster follows.

The report Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface is available on the Internet at http://www.nap.edu.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.ns....ocument

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-07 05:49:30

For my graduate work at Embry-Riddle, I wrote a paper called "Mars Now -- A Practical Architecture for Manned Mars Exploration in the Very Near Term." Here's the abstract:

This paper outlines an architecture for a manned expedition to Mars in the near term (2006-2009). [Note: the paper was written in 1997.] After briefly reviewing and critiquing current thought on how such a mission might be carried out, the paper defines the problem in terms of mission objectives and obstacles. From this definition a solution strategy develops which makes maximum use of mature technologies and off-the-shelf components in order to minimize technical risks and research and development costs. Designs of a Mars Orbital Transfer Vehicle and Mars surface infrastructure are discussed, as well as flight trajectories, crew composition, and proposed scientific activities. The paper concludes that the Mars Now architecture is capable of achieving manned Mars exploration in the near term, with minimal technical risk and at a fraction of the cost of other proposed architectures.

In the spirit of this thread, if anyone would be interested in reading the text of the paper, let me know.

Canth · 2002-05-07 13:32:23

I am interested. You could post it on a website, that would allow all the interested parties easy access to it.

Adrian · 2002-05-07 13:33:10

I'd be happy to put the paper online at New Mars, if you want.

Bill White · 2002-05-07 14:09:53

How does the "Mars Now architecture" differ from

a) Mars Direct; or
b) Mars SCHEME - (the Caltech guys); or
c) NASA Reference Mission?

Are there other developed and viable mission architectures besides the above 3, plus Mars Now?

Christina · 2002-05-07 14:51:41

For example, dust could contain high concentrations of sulfur and chlorine, compounds that could degrade human lung tissue if inhaled and corrode equipment.
There is also uncertainty as to the quantity of toxic metals, such as hexavalent chromium, in the soil. While small amounts of these metals may not affect the astronauts immediately, they could have long-term effects, such as cancer. Robotic sampling of soil and airborne dust could determine the presence and extent of any harmful organisms or compounds.

etc etc.

Suddenly TPTB are determined to be ultra-careful about all this. Don't want anyone suing for health damage when they get back, I suppose.

That's assuming they could get anyone willing to do a , what is it now, 18 month round trip in a tin can with a few other folks?

Anyway, isn't the first sample return mission currently scheduled for 2011 - 2016?

Shaun Barrett · 2002-05-08 01:48:15

For all we know, NASA could have re-scheduled it for 3011-3016 !!! We wouldn't want to rush into things now .... would we?!
Oops! There goes the old paranoia again!

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-08 03:07:45

...Are there other developed and viable mission architectures besides the above 3, plus Mars Now?

It's very generous of you to include my meager offering among those mentioned above...especially considering you haven't seen the proposal.

After thinking about it, I don't have any problem posting the paper on line (Adrian, should I email it to you?) but I have to warn you of a couple of things up front:

1. The paper covers a lot of ground in 12 pages...in other words, what it lacks in depth it makes up for in width. This paper was intended to be the "first chapter," if you will, of the master's thesis I never finished.

2. It's somewhat dated at this point. It was written in 1997 based upon the political and economic climate of the day, and expecting NASA to move forward with a few key technologies (primarily X-33). It really needs updating to be revelant, but I don't have time to do that today...so it comes "as is."

3. It's not the most Zubrin-friendly piece of technical literature out there. :0 Please don't misunderstand this; I have the utmost respect for Dr. Zubrin both as a scientist and as an activist. In fact, there is no one in the field of Mars exploration whom I respect more. But the point of my project was to develop an architecture that would enable us to go to Mars as soon as possible...so I deviated from "Mars Direct" for reasons I make clear in the paper.

4. Finally...I was heavily under the influence of Stephen Baxter's book Voyage when I wrote this paper...so be warned.

By the way, Adrian...I also have the Powerpoint presentation I put together to pitch the idea to my faculty advisors. If you'd like that as well, let me know.

Poppa · 2002-05-09 10:22:58

I am going to suggest the following if you want to see a 1000-fold increase in space exploration, especially interest in mars.

- Announce a contest for a volunteer for a one-way, first-person-on-mars mission. No return trip.

- Schedule it for launch in 2003. (in other words, set a deadline!)

- Plan the mission with minimal life support and safety considerations. Market it as a sacrifice in the name of all mankind if for no other reason than to elevate the human spirit. Equate it to the experience of all the early sailors who dared to sail off the end of the earth.

- THEN DO IT. Ignore all criticism. Ignore all naysayers. Pool all resources. Forget scientific experiments, economic benefits or any other material gains. Do it for the sake of getting it done. Send the guy up in an insulated tin can with an engine and a parachute.

A martyr for all humankind.

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-09 11:16:52

^^^ This would certainly qualify as a crash program...

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-09 14:23:46

Hehehe, suicide mission!

Tom Jolly · 2002-05-09 22:47:16

I'd like to toss two radical ideas out here, but I like them both.

It seems to me there are two great ways to get to Mars, fast. One is to modify the whole Mars Direct program to send some people with a one-way ticket and 6 months worth of food and air. Three Protons with payloads of the man-carrying section, and two solid rockets would probably get you there. I did all the calcs for a Hohmann trip, and I don't remember the fuel being a terribly big load. Have to look it back up. Anyway, we're talking maybe $300 mil for the launches, maybe $100 mil for hardware on a budget, aerobraking and fuel to spare, and if the volunteers live past 6 months using their wits, solar collectors, inflatable food-growing pods, and so on, great. If they die after 6 months, too bad. Give their families $10 million each and a nice letter signed by the president, you still save a ton of money and you could do the whole thing in a matter of years. Even private companies could do this and make a profit from merchandising. There would NOT be a lack of volunteers.

Second; hype up the conflict and threat of a Chinese Mars. Yeah, I know this is pathetic and uses the average American like a tool, but what's new about that in politics? Advertise the FACT that, "Oh, My God, they're going to get there before us, and then all Mars will become a new Communist world!". The general pop would eat it up, and you'd have another Apollo race. Of course, there's the downside; once NASA got there, they'd say, "Oh, we won...now we're going to stop." The only way to avoid that scenario is to convince the populace beforehand that China is going to build a humongous colony there, and make sure we do it first. Of course, this may not be a fiction...

Tom Jolly · 2002-05-09 22:50:46

Oops. I see Poppa already suggested the first option. Well, I'm with him, then.
Tom

Josh Cryer · 2002-05-09 22:51:08

Tom, brilliant idea. And you're right, it may not be fiction. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to say otherwise. Don't worry about China settling Mars first, though. Sure, they may get their first, but the US would not allow them to create a settlement. We're simply too proud.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-05-02 12:06:20

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#2 2002-05-02 13:45:47

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#3 2002-05-03 08:14:07

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#4 2002-05-03 12:23:11

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#5 2002-05-03 13:41:50

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#6 2002-05-04 11:42:40

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#7 2002-05-04 13:02:44

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#8 2002-05-05 04:19:09

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#9 2002-05-05 13:55:29

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#10 2002-05-05 19:26:32

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#11 2002-05-06 10:15:36

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#12 2002-05-07 05:49:30

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#13 2002-05-07 13:32:23

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#14 2002-05-07 13:33:10

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#15 2002-05-07 14:09:53

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#16 2002-05-07 14:51:41

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#17 2002-05-08 01:48:15

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#18 2002-05-08 03:07:45

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#19 2002-05-09 10:22:58

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#20 2002-05-09 11:16:52

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#21 2002-05-09 14:23:46

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#22 2002-05-09 22:47:16

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#23 2002-05-09 22:50:46

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

#24 2002-05-09 22:51:08

Re: If we start a crash program today.... - Earth to Mars timeframe?

Board footer