Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

RobertDyck · 2016-05-17 21:29:48

Popular Science: Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years
Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party

This new mission proposal would send 6 astronauts to Mars orbit. No attempt to land on the surface, just orbit. With excursions to the moons of Mars, but not land on those either. It includes 2 Orion spacecraft. This reminds me of a quote from the movie "Contact":

First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?

Antius · 2016-05-18 05:35:09

It offers value if the crew can control surface vehicles in real time. Suddenly you get a lot more useful science out of the robotic surface package. And sample returns are easier when the launcher is heading for low Mars orbit rather than Earth surface. All in all, this would be a minimum cost way of answering the big questions about the planet without the cost and risk of putting men on the surface.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-18 09:17:22

Looks like a mini-Battlestar Galactica. I notice it does not spin for artificial gravity, but they did use propellant as radiation shielding. At least it's an attempt at an orbit-to-orbit transport.

Based on human aspirations for centuries, I have to ask this question: what is the point of sending humans to Mars, if they don't land there?

GW

RobertDyck · 2016-05-18 09:47:06

In the year 2000 I read several science papers, published in peer reviewed journals, about work on quantum entanglement. What are the chances the military has actually done it, and using it now?

Quantum entanglement has several advantages. For the military, it provides direct point-to-point communication that cannot be intercepted, detected, jammed, shielded, or blocked. Perfect for a stealth aircraft or covert ops team. It also provides instantaneous communication, mathematically exactly zero time from the subatomic particle of the active element of the transmitter to the subatomic particle of the active element of the receiver. From there it's normal electronics. So that means an operator at an Air Force base in North Dakota can fly a UCAV over Afghanistan, in real time. No propagation delay.

For a Mars mission that means someone at JPL in California can operate a rover on Mars surface. No advantage to Mars orbit.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-18 10:04:10

Don't know much about quantum stuff. I just know that it's usually multiple decades between a physics lab experiment and any sort of practical device.

GW

Quaoar · 2016-05-18 10:38:36

GW Johnson wrote:

Don't know much about quantum stuff. I just know that it's usually multiple decades between a physics lab experiment and any sort of practical device.
GW

They don't land. They have no artificial gravity. They spend more than two yeras at zero gee in an orion capsule. I think they will become insane before they will be crippled during the 14 gee reenter.

This mission is completely unuseful. For less and less the money it needs they can send an unmanned rover of 10 tons, equipped with a lab for saercing trace of life.

Last edited by Quaoar (2016-05-18 10:43:49)

Antius · 2016-05-18 12:53:39

RobertDyck wrote:

In the year 2000 I read several science papers, published in peer reviewed journals, about work on quantum entanglement. What are the chances the military has actually done it, and using it now?
Quantum entanglement has several advantages. For the military, it provides direct point-to-point communication that cannot be intercepted, detected, jammed, shielded, or blocked. Perfect for a stealth aircraft or covert ops team. It also provides instantaneous communication, mathematically exactly zero time from the subatomic particle of the active element of the transmitter to the subatomic particle of the active element of the receiver. From there it's normal electronics. So that means an operator at an Air Force base in North Dakota can fly a UCAV over Afghanistan, in real time. No propagation delay.
For a Mars mission that means someone at JPL in California can operate a rover on Mars surface. No advantage to Mars orbit.

Quantum entanglement is real enough, but I have never heard of it being used to transmit information faster than light. That would be a miracle, fantastic if true, but unlikely.

Antius · 2016-05-18 13:01:58

Quaoar wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Don't know much about quantum stuff. I just know that it's usually multiple decades between a physics lab experiment and any sort of practical device.
GW
They don't land. They have no artificial gravity. They spend more than two yeras at zero gee in an orion capsule. I think they will become insane before they will be crippled during the 14 gee reenter.
This mission is completely unuseful. For less and less the money it needs they can send an unmanned rover of 10 tons, equipped with a lab for saercing trace of life.

Not completely useless, though undoubtedly less useful. Right now, the round trip communication time between Earth and Mars makes rovers slow and cumbersome. The amount of distance they can cover and therefore the amount of science you can get out of them is inversely proportional to round trip comms time.

But why not land on Phobos or Deimos? An orbit to orbit vehicle is undoubtedly easier and a Phobos base would be a beach head that would assist manned exploration of the planet later on.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-18 16:30:44

RobertDyck wrote:

Popular Science: Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years
Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/mars-base-camp.jpg?itok=eIwc2Ckf&fc=50,50
This new mission proposal would send 6 astronauts to Mars orbit. No attempt to land on the surface, just orbit. With excursions to the moons of Mars, but not land on those either. It includes 2 Orion spacecraft. This reminds me of a quote from the movie "Contact":
First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VTUrdizRZyw/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=320&h=180&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=ZOuJkwjQI2Tcel6Q_cc_2Uixcw0

What's with these circular solar arrays? Why have they been so in vogue lately, Seen them with the Orion Capsule for one!
The question is whether there is any value sending humans to Mars orbit in 2028, that's 12 years from now, well actually 10 years from now I suppose if you mean when this mission is launched. Is this space station assembled in Mars orbit? I suppose they can just send android replicates to the Martian surface. Maybe design each one to look like each astronaut.

RobertDyck · 2016-05-18 17:51:04

Antius wrote:

Quantum entanglement is real enough, but I have never heard of it being used to transmit information faster than light. That would be a miracle, fantastic if true, but unlikely.

That's the whole point. It's not actually "faster than light" in the sense that there is no speed. Speed is distance divided by time, you can't divide finite distance by zero time. Talk to a math professor about division by zero. You can learn more by looking up a paper written in 1930 by Dr. Albert Einstein, Dr. Podolsky, and Dr. Rosen. It's often called the "EPR" paper, initials from the authors last names. They tried to disprove quantum mechanics by showing a mathematical contradiction. They proved wrong, quantum mechanics is the basis of modern electronics, it obviously works. Their argument was based on a principle assumed true, but that principle has since been proven false. One issue Einstein had was Dr. Schrodinger created quantum mechanics based on empirical evidence: we observe subatomic particles move this way, this formula matches their motion, we don't know why, it just does. Dr. Einstein never liked anything that doesn't have a reason. In the EPR paper they argued that if quantum mechanics is real, then quantum entanglement would allow instantaneous communication across interstellar distance. That's absurd! Now that we know quantum mechanics is true, many physicists said this paper is brilliant! Instantaneous communication isn't absurd, it's a great idea!

Quaoar · 2016-05-19 03:01:18

Antius wrote:

Not completely useless, though undoubtedly less useful. Right now, the round trip communication time between Earth and Mars makes rovers slow and cumbersome. The amount of distance they can cover and therefore the amount of science you can get out of them is inversely proportional to round trip comms time.
But why not land on Phobos or Deimos? An orbit to orbit vehicle is undoubtedly easier and a Phobos base would be a beach head that would assist manned exploration of the planet later on.

If they want to stay for more than two year in Mars orbit they need a bigger habitat with artificial gravity, otherwise the crew will suffer very serious health and mental damage. With a view to accept such an outcome, it may be less and less expensive to openly send an expendable crew in a one way mission.

SpaceNut · 2016-05-19 20:11:49

The way I see it is Lockheed is waiting for another cost plus contract and will not do any real developent of there proposal as a commercial COTS provider would be doing. With the contract coming in for the purchase and modifications agreement for use......

RobertDyck · 2016-05-20 01:30:15

Another Deep Space Habitat...
NASA Spaceflight: Orbital ATK unveils cislunar habitat plan, potential missions for SLS and Orion

Quaoar · 2016-05-20 06:48:30

Here is explained why quantum entanglement cannot be used to send FTL messages

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi … tanglement

GW Johnson · 2016-05-20 10:07:23

The Orbital ATK cluster, if rearranged as a linear baton, could be spun for artificial gravity. Otherwise, it is still the same cluster-f*** design we use now that forces astronauts to risk more-and-more microgravity disease the longer they stay aboard.

Same is true of the Lockheed-Martin concept in the first post above.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-20 10:49:43

RobertDyck wrote:

Popular Science: Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years
Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/mars-base-camp.jpg?itok=eIwc2Ckf&fc=50,50
This new mission proposal would send 6 astronauts to Mars orbit. No attempt to land on the surface, just orbit. With excursions to the moons of Mars, but not land on those either. It includes 2 Orion spacecraft. This reminds me of a quote from the movie "Contact":
First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VTUrdizRZyw/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=320&h=180&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=ZOuJkwjQI2Tcel6Q_cc_2Uixcw0

Why not send six astronauts into Venus orbit instead? Since they aren't going to be landing anyway, and on Venus, a manned landing is impossible, why not send this spaceship to Venus, that should be easier than going to Mars.

Antius · 2016-05-20 11:00:22

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Popular Science: Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years
Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/mars-base-camp.jpg?itok=eIwc2Ckf&fc=50,50
This new mission proposal would send 6 astronauts to Mars orbit. No attempt to land on the surface, just orbit. With excursions to the moons of Mars, but not land on those either. It includes 2 Orion spacecraft. This reminds me of a quote from the movie "Contact":
First rule in government spending: Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VTUrdizRZyw/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=320&h=180&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=ZOuJkwjQI2Tcel6Q_cc_2Uixcw0
Why not send six astronauts into Venus orbit instead? Since they aren't going to be landing anyway, and on Venus, a manned landing is impossible, why not send this spaceship to Venus, that should be easier than going to Mars.

Because there is no value in doing so. We aren't going to Mars because we have a spare $10billion and couldn't think of anything else to do with it. There are really big scientific questions that need to be answered, such as 'are we alone in the universe'. We would be none the wiser on those issues if we went to Venus, though we would have witness confirmation of the existence of hell.

RobertDyck · 2016-05-20 12:46:18

Antius wrote:

We aren't going to Mars because we have a spare $10billion

Old Space appears to disagree.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-20 15:17:41

Well, that's how Old Space has stayed fat and happy all these decades after Apollo. It has worked all along. Why would they not try it again?

Just remember, with planned vehicles like these, you spend the $10B, but you do not get a landing! What's the point of spending the money and the effort to go, if you don't land? This ain't the moon, going to Mars is still quite hard for us at this time in history.

GW

SpaceNut · 2016-05-20 21:12:56

Its not that we can not design or build such a space station or deep space habitat its about the funding via whom....that is the issue....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-21 07:37:15

Antius wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
Popular Science: Lockheed Martin Wants To Send Humans To Mars In 12 Years
Orbiting laboratory could pave the way for a landing party
http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/large_1x_/public/mars-base-camp.jpg?itok=eIwc2Ckf&fc=50,50
This new mission proposal would send 6 astronauts to Mars orbit. No attempt to land on the surface, just orbit. With excursions to the moons of Mars, but not land on those either. It includes 2 Orion spacecraft. This reminds me of a quote from the movie "Contact":
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VTUrdizRZyw/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=320&h=180&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=ZOuJkwjQI2Tcel6Q_cc_2Uixcw0
Why not send six astronauts into Venus orbit instead? Since they aren't going to be landing anyway, and on Venus, a manned landing is impossible, why not send this spaceship to Venus, that should be easier than going to Mars.
Because there is no value in doing so. We aren't going to Mars because we have a spare $10billion and couldn't think of anything else to do with it. There are really big scientific questions that need to be answered, such as 'are we alone in the universe'. We would be none the wiser on those issues if we went to Venus, though we would have witness confirmation of the existence of hell.

There may be life on Venus, the lost likely place to find life on Venus is in the clouds of sulfuric acid droplets. If there is life in those clouds, then that means that at one time Venus had oceans, and when those oceans went away, the life that remained persisted in the clouds. Life on Mars, if it exists, probably lives underground. Anyway the most important issue with Venus is what we can do with it. We don't have many terrestrial planets in our Solar System, the ones we do have are Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars, the three bodies most easily within our reach are the Moon, Venus, and Mars in increasing difficulty in getting there. Now if our purpose is to send astronauts to interplanetary locations without them landing, then Venus would be an easier target to get to than Mars. If we're not worrying about landing, then the inhospitable conditions on Venus' surface don't matter, we just send astronauts to orbit the planet, and we can send drones down to Venus, that are controlled by the astronauts minds in real time, that does appear to be the purpose of sending such a station to Mars after all. If we are going to do everything by remote control, why not send astronauts to Venus? In fact why not have a space station orbiting the Moon, Venus, and Mars, spend equal amounts of money on all three of these places and see what we can do?

You ever see the movie Surrogates?

This is science fiction.

This is not!

I'm willing to bet, that ten years from now, we'll have androids that are even more lifelike, and with the ability to walk around. Now hears the idea, what if we built androids that looked like each of the astronauts we sent to Mars, these androids cannot think, they have no artificial intelligence, they instead are teleoperated by astronauts orbiting the planet, while these androids actually walk on its surface. The astronauts wear body suits, they have goggles with eye trackers, so when they move their eyes, the android robots on Mars, or Venus, or the Moon move their eyes the same way.

If an astronaut in a body suit moves his arm, the android on the surface of Mars moves its arm in the same way. The android has no trouble getting about on Mars, so long as the astronaut from orbit controls it, if he wants the android to pick up a rock and put it in a bag, there are no gloved fingers or pressurized suit to get in its way. Bare robot fingers controlled by the astronaut, pick up the rock and put it in the collection back, just as if it were a person doing that on Earth. The android would also convey in senses to the human operators, if the rock picked up was hard, the human operator would feel its hardness, in a way, this is much better than an actual human in a space suit. All you really need is for human brains to be nearby to make intelligent decisions, say in orbit around the planet instead of on Earth, where light speed time delays cause problems and slowness in decision making.

There is also no reason we couldn't send an android down in a balloon in the atmosphere of Venus and do experiments there, like grow plants for instance. I doubt any sort of robot could last long on Venus' surface, but at high altitude they could, and with androids there instead of humans, we don't have to worry about getting them back! It is easier to go from Venus orbit back to Earth, than from within Venus' atmosphere back to Earth. in fact getting from Venus orbit back to Earth is easier than getting from Mars orbit back to Earth, and the mission duration for a Venus orbital mission is shorter than for a Mars orbital mission, that means less exposure to zero gravity for the human crew, and less detrimental effects once they return to Earth. There are some advantages in sending humans to Venus.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-05-21 07:37:56)

GW Johnson · 2016-05-21 10:22:46

Your teleoperated robots need not be humanoid in form. The only reason we don't do that with Mars probes is speed-of-light delay. That's not an issue from lower orbits, but does become an issue from higher orbits nearer synchronous, for fast-reaction scenarios. It would be a problem on the moon.

So, yes, we could explore the surface of Venus from orbit with teleoperated probes.

But I (and some others) still ask "why?" What could be there that we could learn from a surface probe which is not something we could learn from an orbiting probe, or that we already learned with the old surface probes decades ago?

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-21 20:59:17

GW Johnson wrote:

Your teleoperated robots need not be humanoid in form.

Would you be comfortable with your point of view inside a rover, such that when you moved your right arm, the rover's right forward wheel would spin, and when you moved your left arm, its left forward wheel would spin, move your left leg, and the rover's rear left wheel would spin, move your right leg, and its right rear wheel would spin. If your going to teleoperate a robot, and have your perception in that robot, wouldn't you want it to look like you rather than as a piece of hardware? Rovers are limited in their manipulators. human hands can do things that your standard robot appendages can't do. What we need is a robot that duplicates the full range of human movement, that way operating on the Martian surface would seem natural, rather than going with a joystick like an Atari player.

GW Johnson wrote:

The only reason we don't do that with Mars probes is speed-of-light delay.

which is precisely why you bring the humans, for their human level judgement, and it would be nice if they had human like hands for picking up rocks and human like feet for getting around on the planet's surface rather than wheels as a paraplegic has.

GW Johnson wrote:

That's not an issue from lower orbits, but does become an issue from higher orbits nearer synchronous, for fast-reaction scenarios. It would be a problem on the moon.

We would undoubtedly need low orbit communication satellite relays in order to operate the remotes with minimum communication's delay, because in low Mars orbit, the spaceship won't stay above one place for very long. The easiest place to operate would be above the equator in an equatorial orbit with a ring of trailing and following relay communications satellites, so at least one is above the robot site at all times!

GW Johnson wrote:

So, yes, we could explore the surface of Venus from orbit with teleoperated probes.
But I (and some others) still ask "why?" What could be there that we could learn from a surface probe which is not something we could learn from an orbiting probe, or that we already learned with the old surface probes decades ago?
GW

A surface probe can pick up rocks, deliver them to a waiting airship with a rocket ready to lift the rock samples to orbit, the rocks can then be brought to Earth for further examination. We can also collect samples from the sulfuric acid clouds and look for life in them. I would put teleoperated humanoid robots in the airships, they wouldn't need to breath the air, so they could go outside, listen to the wind, maybe even attempt to grow plants in the enclosed environment within the airship gondola. With force feedback, humans can get a feel for what it would be like to operate in that environment without actually being there. Not sure what sulfuric acid mist would do to those robots, probably wouldn't look pretty though, unless they have some acid resistant coating.

GW Johnson · 2016-05-21 22:12:23

The sulfuric acid would destroy just about all known materials that we have, on time scales from hours to a couple of weeks, even up high where it is not hot. On the surface, it is so hostile that equipment lifetimes are minutes to hours, almost no matter what you build. There is nothing available from which to fashion solid state electronics which could survive above 95 C.

What you describe for surface sample return, and for plant cultivation experiments up high, sounds interesting, but not very compelling. The rocks are likely granites and basalts, same as here, just weathered differently. We would only be interested in growing plants up high in the atmosphere if we intended to try to live there. But the place is so dangerous and hostile, I cannot see why anybody would want to live there.

As for native life up in the atmosphere, I have never heard any scientists suggest that there might such. There's no water. Most of them say "follow the water", meaning they think without it, there can be no life. Not life as we know it or could recognize it.

GW

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-05-22 05:52:44

If there was no water, there would not be clouds covering the entire planet. You really can't have sulfuric acid without water! Sulfuric acid without water can't form raindrops. The fact remains it rains on Venus, it doesn't rain on Mars, not any more. The only other solid world where it rains is Titan and Earth.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-05-22 05:54:56)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-05-17 21:29:48

Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#2 2016-05-18 05:35:09

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#3 2016-05-18 09:17:22

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#4 2016-05-18 09:47:06

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#5 2016-05-18 10:04:10

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#6 2016-05-18 10:38:36

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#7 2016-05-18 12:53:39

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#8 2016-05-18 13:01:58

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#9 2016-05-18 16:30:44

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#10 2016-05-18 17:51:04

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#11 2016-05-19 03:01:18

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#12 2016-05-19 20:11:49

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#13 2016-05-20 01:30:15

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#14 2016-05-20 06:48:30

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#15 2016-05-20 10:07:23

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#16 2016-05-20 10:49:43

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#17 2016-05-20 11:00:22

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#18 2016-05-20 12:46:18

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#19 2016-05-20 15:17:41

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#20 2016-05-20 21:12:56

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#21 2016-05-21 07:37:15

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#22 2016-05-21 10:22:46

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#23 2016-05-21 20:59:17

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#24 2016-05-21 22:12:23

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

#25 2016-05-22 05:52:44

Re: Lockheed Martin mission to Mars orbit

Board footer