The First Humans on Mars

louis · 2018-04-09 15:19:38

Have people seen this video? Seems quite a good general look at human settlement issues, though I didn't spot anything v. new on a quick run through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jowVq81AgGw

SpaceNut · 2018-04-09 19:42:07

We will be shocked if we do it in our lifetime, it would seem as Nasa is dragging there heals....We have been simulating living on a mars analog in several places and we have lots of useable data to design a mission for man to be able to go.

louis · 2018-04-10 08:08:36

More than that, we've had people living in zero G space, with no access to resources apart from solar energy for over a year.

Don't you think Space X can do it then?

I am a Space X optimist, as I feel they have already built up a huge body of knowledge, which is now a platform for the Mars Mission.

SpaceNut wrote:

We will be shocked if we do it in our lifetime, it would seem as Nasa is dragging there heals....We have been simulating living on a mars analog in several places and we have lots of useable data to design a mission for man to be able to go.

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-10 09:50:30

SpaceNut wrote:

We will be shocked if we do it in our lifetime, it would seem as Nasa is dragging there heals....We have been simulating living on a mars analog in several places and we have lots of useable data to design a mission for man to be able to go.

And women will also be able to go!

Void · 2018-04-10 11:57:23

No! Monastery's only! We shall learn by banging our heads with thick books.

Such happiness!

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mo … &FORM=VIRE

Last edited by Void (2018-04-10 11:58:32)

RobertDyck · 2018-04-10 12:38:41

Void wrote:

No! Monastery's only! We shall learn by banging our heads with thick books.
Such happiness!
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mo … &FORM=VIRE

In that video, actors portraying monks hit themselves in the head with a wooden board. It's not books. This may sound absurd, but if you read history the dark ages actually had a fad where people tortured themselves, self-flagellation etc.

GW Johnson · 2018-04-10 12:58:15

In keeping with the head-pounding chanting monks, we'll need a giant scale to weigh accused witches. (That's from the same movie, by the way.) The theory was that if she weighed the same as a duck (which floats), she's made of wood (which also floats), and is therefore a witch.

And if you accept that, then I have some some beachfront property in Atlantis to offer you. Beautiful ocean view, 1200 feet, straight up.

GW

ps - that was supposed to be funny.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-10 15:42:30

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine: Consequences of Repetitive Head Impacts and Multiple Concussions

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have begun to examine blood-oxygen-level dependent brain activity following repetitive head impacts. Talvage and colleagues (2010) prospectively followed 11 male high school football players ages 15 to 19 both preseason and postseason. A negative association was observed between the number of subconcussive repetitive impacts to the front of the head and activity in the prefrontal cortex, as indicated by blood-oxygen-level dependent signals on the fMRI during the performance of a working memory test. These players also exhibited neurocognitive deficits as measured by ImPACT scores on visual memory.

This could explain a lot of the behaviour of religious leaders of the dark ages.

elderflower · 2018-04-11 05:57:52

How do you explain the behaviour of the not-so-dark ages religious leaders, Robert?

Extracts tongue from cheek before biting it.

GW Johnson · 2018-04-11 12:38:26

"Always look on the bright side of life!"

GW

SpaceNut · 2018-04-11 18:48:29

That would being able to see the mars sunrise and sunset in true living color not the colorized images that we are seeing.

On the note of no women for mars then it will feel like a Monastery, so learn your chanting....or learn an instrument....

And on the brighter note you made it to Mars just how bad can that be?

kbd512 · 2018-04-12 15:16:49

louis wrote:

More than that, we've had people living in zero G space, with no access to resources apart from solar energy for over a year.

Please tell me what you think all those resupply flights are carrying to the ISS every year. I noticed that nearly all of the manifests include food, water, and fuel or replacement parts for things that stopped working or need to be refueled. They're getting resupplied every few months and they're only 250 miles away. Can you even contemplate what could possibly go wrong when the nearest resupply is 34 million miles away?

louis wrote:

Don't you think Space X can do it then?

Are they carrying humans to ISS right now? If not, then no. Some day they should be, but we've yet to see that day.

louis wrote:

I am a Space X optimist, as I feel they have already built up a huge body of knowledge, which is now a platform for the Mars Mission.

I'm a space exploration realist. If it's never been done before, then any beliefs about what is known or not known about how to do it are purely speculative in nature. Nobody even knows, and I mean that quite literally (it's not a belief, conjecture, or speculation), knows how well the human body will survive in a .38g environment. Prior to spending tens of billions of dollars to go live somewhere tens of millions of miles away from Earth, only to find out our bodies don't do very well there, is pointlessly expensive.

Someone should demand that NASA figure out how well humans fare in .38g prior to shipping ordinary Earthlings to Mars. If it doesn't work as well as you "feel" it should, then perhaps there are more fundamental problems to overcome prior to starting as second branch of humanity on Mars. That is the sort of question requiring a scientific answer that is conducive to basic human health before we start cramming a bunch of people into tin cans bound for Mars.

louis · 2018-04-12 16:17:48

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
More than that, we've had people living in zero G space, with no access to resources apart from solar energy for over a year.
Please tell me what you think all those resupply flights are carrying to the ISS every year. I noticed that nearly all of the manifests include food, water, and fuel or replacement parts for things that stopped working or need to be refueled. They're getting resupplied every few months and they're only 250 miles away. Can you even contemplate what could possibly go wrong when the nearest resupply is 34 million miles away?

My response is:

(a) The ISS dates from 20 years ago. The BFR will be state of the art technology in all regards.

(b) ISS is a complicated beast serving several distinct purposes. The BFR's purpose is much clearer.

(c) Space is an essentially benign environment (leaving aside the radiation issue), whether you are orbiting Earth or heading for Mars doesn't make a huge difference. People have been on the ISS for longer than a year. The BFR journey will be aorund 6 months.

(d) When the pioneers get to Mars there will be 450 tonnes of cargo waiting for them.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
Don't you think Space X can do it then?
Are they carrying humans to ISS right now? If not, then no. Some day they should be, but we've yet to see that day.

They are well advanced on the Crewed Dragon - the design work is just about complete and that will of course feed into the Mars Mission. It took NASA a mere six years to go from having no people in space to putting them around the Moon. They were pretty much working from scratch. Space X can draw on a vast body of knowledge to achieve successful human space flight.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
I am a Space X optimist, as I feel they have already built up a huge body of knowledge, which is now a platform for the Mars Mission.
I'm a space exploration realist. If it's never been done before, then any beliefs about what is known or not known about how to do it are purely speculative in nature. Nobody even knows, and I mean that quite literally (it's not a belief, conjecture, or speculation), knows how well the human body will survive in a .38g environment. Prior to spending tens of billions of dollars to go live somewhere tens of millions of miles away from Earth, only to find out our bodies don't do very well there, is pointlessly expensive.
Someone should demand that NASA figure out how well humans fare in .38g prior to shipping ordinary Earthlings to Mars. If it doesn't work as well as you "feel" it should, then perhaps there are more fundamental problems to overcome prior to starting as second branch of humanity on Mars. That is the sort of question requiring a scientific answer that is conducive to basic human health before we start cramming a bunch of people into tin cans bound for Mars.

Putting humans into space in the early 60s was a risk a step into the unknown. Obviously steps were taken to address those risks e.g. through animal experimentation. But even so, there was no complete understanding of what we were stepping into...the early astronauts thought they saw space "fireflies" outside, and nobody really knew whether or not there was life in orbital space.

I don't think you can really call the BFR a tin can...if you do, it's a very large one! Mission One is not a mission of colonisation, only of colonisation preparation.

Valeri Polyakov spent over 14 months in space in one go. He returned in pretty good shape. The record for cumulative time spent in space is about 2 years.

From Wikipedia: "Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars."

I am not saying we trust Wikipedia though! I presume that as part of the build up to a Mars Mission there will be a Mars simulation as there were orbital trials of Apollo. Beginning in 2020 or 2021, this could involve a test crew travelling into lunar orbit for 6 months, then landing on the Moon and setting up a base there for 2 years (during which time they would wear weighted suits to simulate 0.38 G), and returning then to lunar orbit for another six months before returning to Earth. If time is short for such a simulation mission, then I think a period of 1 year to 18 months on the Moon would still provide valuable evidence. If the health of people returning from this simulation was seriously compromised, then you would of course if necessary cancel the 2024 human mission. But my assessment on the basis of the available evidence is that the crew will return in reasonable, if not perfect health.

SpaceNut · 2018-04-12 16:46:36

Moon simulation time frame is based on a scolding hot 14 days followed by the deepest of cold for 14 days only to repeat it in a very high dosage level of radiation, cosmic rays ect...Sure will simualate a data point for mans gravity effects but with the rising cancer risk its a no go on the surface. So tunneling into the moon is the answer for both climate and for protection.

louis · 2018-04-12 17:14:50

I would envisage that in the case of a Mars simulation lunar hab, we would be covering an already well protected hab in a lot of regolith. EVAs would be limited. A lot of the action on the lunar surface would be simulated e.g. monitoring of propellant production, reaction to emergencies etc.

The main issue would be can you handle a six month "return" in zero G after the prolonged stay on the lunar surface at simulated 0.38.

SpaceNut wrote:

Moon simulation time frame is based on a scolding hot 14 days followed by the deepest of cold for 14 days only to repeat it in a very high dosage level of radiation, cosmic rays ect...Sure will simualate a data point for mans gravity effects but with the rising cancer risk its a no go on the surface. So tunneling into the moon is the answer for both climate and for protection.

elderflower · 2018-04-13 05:33:13

somewhere there's a thread about a Mars gravity simulation satellite.
At the very least we should have rats in a centrifuge on the ISS at .38 G.

kbd512 · 2018-04-13 07:25:30

louis wrote:

My response is:
(a) The ISS dates from 20 years ago. The BFR will be state of the art technology in all regards.
(b) ISS is a complicated beast serving several distinct purposes. The BFR's purpose is much clearer.
(c) Space is an essentially benign environment (leaving aside the radiation issue), whether you are orbiting Earth or heading for Mars doesn't make a huge difference. People have been on the ISS for longer than a year. The BFR journey will be aorund 6 months.
(d) When the pioneers get to Mars there will be 450 tonnes of cargo waiting for them.

Louis,

(a) What do you believe the current "state-of-the-art" is for modern spacecraft? Virtually all current closed loop life support systems development comes from NASA's contractors. If NASA doesn't have it then it's a safe bet that nobody else has it, either.

(b) If you think ISS is complicated, then think about how complicated a fully reusable planet-to-planet transport vehicle will be. It's not impossible, but to think it'll be simpler than a series of connected pressurized aluminum cans is naive at best. It's incredibly complicated, even with modern technology, but still doable.

(c) Space is definitely NOT a benign environment. Antarctica is cold, but still far mare conducive to human life than Mars is. Both Mars surface and space are absolutely lethal to humans without adequate protection. The reentry and launch environments come with their own unique set of associated hazards and design complications.

(d) Nobody has landed more than 1t on Mars thus far. We're a long, long way from 450t. It's certainly achievable, but easier said than done. Once again, without knowing how well the human body responds to extended duration exposure to .38g, whether we can land 450t or not is irrelevant to whether or not we can successfully colonize the planet. Human physiology still dictates where we function acceptably well.

louis wrote:

They are well advanced on the Crewed Dragon - the design work is just about complete and that will of course feed into the Mars Mission. It took NASA a mere six years to go from having no people in space to putting them around the Moon. They were pretty much working from scratch. Space X can draw on a vast body of knowledge to achieve successful human space flight.

It hasn't flown in space yet and all spacecraft designs require thorough testing and validation prior to committing to launching them with humans aboard. Orion basically required a pressure vessel redesign after actual flight test data highlighted some miscalculations about how well the structure could withstand the rigors of multiple launches and reentries. BFR's pressure vessel is many times larger than the Space Shuttle's was and thus more complicated to properly design. None of this is impossible, but when you push the absolute limit of aerospace technology design, the results are somewhat unpredictable and decidedly expensive.

louis wrote:

Putting humans into space in the early 60s was a risk a step into the unknown. Obviously steps were taken to address those risks e.g. through animal experimentation. But even so, there was no complete understanding of what we were stepping into...the early astronauts thought they saw space "fireflies" outside, and nobody really knew whether or not there was life in orbital space.

I've never said we have no clue about what the results will be, but the problems associated with long duration space flight make the Apollo missions look trivial. The class of problems faced are simply not applicable to missions lasting a week to a few months. We're talking about sending humans into deep space for a minimum of two years. If conditions are not favorable for return, the mission may last much longer than that. The takeaway here is "not trivial".

louis wrote:

I don't think you can really call the BFR a tin can...if you do, it's a very large one! Mission One is not a mission of colonisation, only of colonisation preparation.

In the Navy, we call destroyers and smaller vessels tin cans. All of them have durability issues to one degree or another, especially when aluminum and composites are used. They're made to be compact and lightweight in comparison to more substantial ships.

louis wrote:

Valeri Polyakov spent over 14 months in space in one go. He returned in pretty good shape. The record for cumulative time spent in space is about 2 years.

Great. Let's double that and see what happens.

louis wrote:

From Wikipedia: "Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars."

Polyakov is a sample size of one. I could go for three months on cruises without ever seeing the Sun when I was aboard an aircraft carrier. For whatever reason, not going outside or seeing nothing but darkness didn't bother me. I spent my free time studying or exercising and was mostly content inside my steel cargo container. Other people lost their marbles after spending a couple weeks underway and seeing nothing but blackness outside because our jets flew at night. The women seemed less frequently affected, but in general many of the people I interacted with seemed depressed. Confinement affects everyone differently.

louis wrote:

I am not saying we trust Wikipedia though! I presume that as part of the build up to a Mars Mission there will be a Mars simulation as there were orbital trials of Apollo. Beginning in 2020 or 2021, this could involve a test crew travelling into lunar orbit for 6 months, then landing on the Moon and setting up a base there for 2 years (during which time they would wear weighted suits to simulate 0.38 G), and returning then to lunar orbit for another six months before returning to Earth. If time is short for such a simulation mission, then I think a period of 1 year to 18 months on the Moon would still provide valuable evidence. If the health of people returning from this simulation was seriously compromised, then you would of course if necessary cancel the 2024 human mission. But my assessment on the basis of the available evidence is that the crew will return in reasonable, if not perfect health.

This is not about trusting or not trusting Wikipedia. To begin with, human physiology and psychology can't be distilled down into a series of Wikipedia articles. Any Mars mission involving humans will be the most complicated multi-disciplinary scientific endeavor humans have ever attempted, bar none. The moon should certainly be used to serve as a training analogue that doesn't include the complication of being tens of millions of miles from home. NASA is both talking about doing that and putting money behind the programs required to do that. It's a reasonable first step, however small.

GW Johnson · 2018-04-13 08:05:45

The microgravity disease problem requires more than just a weighted suit or some other resistance exercise. That addresses loss of muscle strength, and perhaps some of the bone loss issue. It may or may not help with the weakening of the heart and vascular system.

But it will do nothing for loss of visual acuity (a fluid pressure gradient distribution effect), and likely will not affect immune system damage at all (something entirely not understood in any way, only verified to exist). At the time Polyakov flew and returned, only the muscle and bone loss issues were known. It would be interesting to follow up with him on these other issues uncovered since.

The point is, there is NO "magic bullet" to fix microgravity risks. The smartest thing to do is just supply artificial spin gravity wherever possible, and to the extent possible. 1 gee would be best, until we know more about what reduced levels will do for us. It really is that simple, and it really is that inconvenient for mission designers. But it is not a show-stopper, only an inconvenience.

What spin gravity makes possible is free-surface water-based cooking, something impossible in zero-gee (free-fall). That frees up menu planning to include a lot of well-proven and much tastier freeze-dried foods that keep far longer than the stuff zero-gee astronauts are forced to eat (one outfit advertising on TV around here claims 25 years). Plus, it also makes possible the use of frozen foods, and fresh foods grown in some sort of garden (also made possible with spin gravity). Frozen foods can be part of the radiation shield, too, by the way.

Why is physical fitness important? Probably not at landing or launch from Mars, that's around 2-4 gees peak loading, something astronauts afflicted with 6 months to a year's free-fall exposure have proven capable of safely enduring. The problem occurs at Earth arrival in a free-return trajectory direct into Earth's atmosphere from interplanetary speed (around 17 km/s at entry interface). That will be a 12-15 gee ride, perhaps even more. (Similar just coming back direct from the moon: 11 gees at 11 km/s.)

Astronauts weakened by 6-12 months zero-gee will not be fit enough to survive that stress. Fully-fit folks have trouble with that. Period. End of issue. Do you want a dead crew just as they make it home? That's the stupidest mission design and management decision I have ever heard of! It doesn't matter how therapeutic Mars's 0.38 gee might be, if you ride home 6-9 months in free fall.

On the other hand, if you ride home 6-9 months at 1 gee spin gravity, you will be healthy enough for a 15 gee free return, even if Mars's 0.38 gee proves to be relatively ineffective at maintaining health. Guys, there's no decision to make here! Just do the spin gravity. (And keep exposures to lunar 0.16 gee under 3-6 months, until we understand better how therapeutic low gravity might really be.)

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-04-13 08:11:25)

GW Johnson · 2018-04-13 12:49:51

In other posts I have recommended the rigid baton spin technique as a faster development than cable-connected systems. Just for argument's sake, say this was constructed of 8 Bigelow B-330 modules docked end-to-end and modified to have fold-out decks perpendicular to their long axes and more structural strength. Plus a similar-size hard center module with electrically-driven flywheels for spin-up and spin-down.

Such an assembly would be something like 9 x 15 m long = 135 m long, of some 8 x 330 cu.m volume = 2640 cu.m. You could completely fill half that volume with supplies and equipment, and still have some 220 cu.m per person for a crew of 6. The spin radius is about 67 m, so it only has to spin at 3.3 rpm to generate 1 full gee at the ends, and 0.5 gee halfway out, etc. Work stations at the tips, sleeping quarters nearest the center, recreation in between. Stay healthy, use free-surface water cooking, and much more conventional toilets and bathing.

Dock propellant tanks around the periphery of the baton, and use them for solar flare radiation shielding. Put engines on one end, the emergency bailout return capsule on the other. Use a departure stage to depart Earth, so the radiation shielding is your arrival propellant. Send your return propellant ahead, and dock the departure tanks to one end, using the arrival propellant as shielding on the way home. Also send ahead your lander vehicles and their propellant. Base out of Mars orbit, like the old 1950's mission concepts.

This thing, if recovered refurbished, and refilled in LEO, could fly many missions to Mars. Or to Mercury. Or Venus. Or any of the NEO's. Even the main asteroid belt. Musk's BFR/BFS could be used exactly the same way. He would need to spin it end-over-end for a bit of spin gravity, though.

Just thinkin' out loud!

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-04-13 12:53:27)

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-13 13:23:55

GW-

It's often said that great minds think alike. See my post # 67 on NASA could make "Skylab II" first deep space "home." I suggested using Bigelow modules in a manner similar to what you've proposed here--although your plan is in more detail

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-04-13 13:25:36)

louis · 2018-04-13 14:28:23

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
My response is:
(a) The ISS dates from 20 years ago. The BFR will be state of the art technology in all regards.
(b) ISS is a complicated beast serving several distinct purposes. The BFR's purpose is much clearer.
(c) Space is an essentially benign environment (leaving aside the radiation issue), whether you are orbiting Earth or heading for Mars doesn't make a huge difference. People have been on the ISS for longer than a year. The BFR journey will be aorund 6 months.
(d) When the pioneers get to Mars there will be 450 tonnes of cargo waiting for them.
Louis,
(a) What do you believe the current "state-of-the-art" is for modern spacecraft? Virtually all current closed loop life support systems development comes from NASA's contractors. If NASA doesn't have it then it's a safe bet that nobody else has it, either.
(b) If you think ISS is complicated, then think about how complicated a fully reusable planet-to-planet transport vehicle will be. It's not impossible, but to think it'll be simpler than a series of connected pressurized aluminum cans is naive at best. It's incredibly complicated, even with modern technology, but still doable.
(c) Space is definitely NOT a benign environment. Antarctica is cold, but still far mare conducive to human life than Mars is. Both Mars surface and space are absolutely lethal to humans without adequate protection. The reentry and launch environments come with their own unique set of associated hazards and design complications.
(d) Nobody has landed more than 1t on Mars thus far. We're a long, long way from 450t. It's certainly achievable, but easier said than done. Once again, without knowing how well the human body responds to extended duration exposure to .38g, whether we can land 450t or not is irrelevant to whether or not we can successfully colonize the planet. Human physiology still dictates where we function acceptably well.

(a) and (b) My understanding is that Space X are developing life support systems for human flight in co-operation with NASA. HOwever, it has to be understood the BFR is a huge craft, with a 150 tonnes cargo capability. With say a six person mission, one could easily take the air and water with you, without any need for recycling.

(c) Compared with the dangers presented by roads, hailstones, rain, snow, ice, hurricanes, air turbulence, ocean waves, whirlpools, tsunamis etc etc, space travel is benign, compared with road, air and sea transport on Earth.

(d) I distinguish between Mission One and colonisation. Finding solutions to the health challenges of living in 0.38 for decades will be a long term project, and a challenging one. But I really don't expect Mission One to present any unmeetable challenges.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
They are well advanced on the Crewed Dragon - the design work is just about complete and that will of course feed into the Mars Mission. It took NASA a mere six years to go from having no people in space to putting them around the Moon. They were pretty much working from scratch. Space X can draw on a vast body of knowledge to achieve successful human space flight.
It hasn't flown in space yet and all spacecraft designs require thorough testing and validation prior to committing to launching them with humans aboard. Orion basically required a pressure vessel redesign after actual flight test data highlighted some miscalculations about how well the structure could withstand the rigors of multiple launches and reentries. BFR's pressure vessel is many times larger than the Space Shuttle's was and thus more complicated to properly design. None of this is impossible, but when you push the absolute limit of aerospace technology design, the results are somewhat unpredictable and decidedly expensive.

I don't challenge anything you write. I just feel Space X are more on the case than most companies.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
Putting humans into space in the early 60s was a risk a step into the unknown. Obviously steps were taken to address those risks e.g. through animal experimentation. But even so, there was no complete understanding of what we were stepping into...the early astronauts thought they saw space "fireflies" outside, and nobody really knew whether or not there was life in orbital space.
I've never said we have no clue about what the results will be, but the problems associated with long duration space flight make the Apollo missions look trivial. The class of problems faced are simply not applicable to missions lasting a week to a few months. We're talking about sending humans into deep space for a minimum of two years. If conditions are not favorable for return, the mission may last much longer than that. The takeaway here is "not trivial".

Agreed, it's a challenging. But I do not think it is acceptable to advance on a "100% risk elimination" profile. NASA has been too cautious. The US needs to rediscover the can-do attitude. They never lost an Apollo astronaut beyond orbit.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
I don't think you can really call the BFR a tin can...if you do, it's a very large one! Mission One is not a mission of colonisation, only of colonisation preparation.
In the Navy, we call destroyers and smaller vessels tin cans. All of them have durability issues to one degree or another, especially when aluminum and composites are used. They're made to be compact and lightweight in comparison to more substantial ships.

Well the ISS seems to have stood up well to space.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
Valeri Polyakov spent over 14 months in space in one go. He returned in pretty good shape. The record for cumulative time spent in space is about 2 years.
Great. Let's double that and see what happens.

Well let's do a Mars simulation mission (to the Moon) and see what happens.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
From Wikipedia: "Polyakov did not suffer from any prolonged performance impairments after returning to Earth. In light of these findings, researchers concluded that a stable mood and overall function could be maintained during extended duration spaceflights, such as manned missions to Mars."
Polyakov is a sample size of one. I could go for three months on cruises without ever seeing the Sun when I was aboard an aircraft carrier. For whatever reason, not going outside or seeing nothing but darkness didn't bother me. I spent my free time studying or exercising and was mostly content inside my steel cargo container. Other people lost their marbles after spending a couple weeks underway and seeing nothing but blackness outside because our jets flew at night. The women seemed less frequently affected, but in general many of the people I interacted with seemed depressed. Confinement affects everyone differently.

Well that's what the selection process is all about...Polyakov was a highly motivated individual with a medical background who wanted to demonstrate people could do well in space. The Mars Mission will certainly impart a high sense of purpose to the pioneers, I think.

kbd512 wrote:

louis wrote:
I am not saying we trust Wikipedia though! I presume that as part of the build up to a Mars Mission there will be a Mars simulation as there were orbital trials of Apollo. Beginning in 2020 or 2021, this could involve a test crew travelling into lunar orbit for 6 months, then landing on the Moon and setting up a base there for 2 years (during which time they would wear weighted suits to simulate 0.38 G), and returning then to lunar orbit for another six months before returning to Earth. If time is short for such a simulation mission, then I think a period of 1 year to 18 months on the Moon would still provide valuable evidence. If the health of people returning from this simulation was seriously compromised, then you would of course if necessary cancel the 2024 human mission. But my assessment on the basis of the available evidence is that the crew will return in reasonable, if not perfect health.
This is not about trusting or not trusting Wikipedia. To begin with, human physiology and psychology can't be distilled down into a series of Wikipedia articles. Any Mars mission involving humans will be the most complicated multi-disciplinary scientific endeavor humans have ever attempted, bar none. The moon should certainly be used to serve as a training analogue that doesn't include the complication of being tens of millions of miles from home. NASA is both talking about doing that and putting money behind the programs required to do that. It's a reasonable first step, however small.

Well we are agreed on something!

louis · 2018-04-13 15:25:05

I'm all for addressing the microgravity problem in due course, but I don't want it to hold up the Mars Mission. Musk seems to take the same view.

Another factor is that Musk seems to be thinking in terms of getting the Earth-Mars transit time down to maybe 3 months. Not quite sure how that will be achieved but if it can be, that again makes the MG problem much more manageable.

I think a 1G centrifuge sleeping pod might provide an interim solution to the 0.38 G issue on Mars. Combined with weighted suits, that might be enough to cope with the physical challenges.

Oldfart1939 wrote:

GW-
It's often said that great minds think alike. See my post # 67 on NASA could make "Skylab II" first deep space "home." I suggested using Bigelow modules in a manner similar to what you've proposed here--although your plan is in more detail

SpaceNut · 2018-04-13 16:36:46

Well from 2 years ago with 48 slides of Bigelow Aerospace's Inflatable Space Station Idea (Photos)

SpaceNut · 2018-04-13 20:10:48

http://www.spectrolab.com/pv/support/Ed … script.pdf

Solar vs. Fission Surface Power for Mars
2009: NASA’s Design Reference Architecture 5.0 base-lined fission surface power for a crewed Mars mission
Insitu fuel creation with 120 dust storm considered in the energy required.
Also when not going to the same site on a return solar will not make it and nuclear wins.

Solar Versus Fission Surface Power for Mars A table for mars insitu demonstrator is contained within this document.

Nasa estimated that 40 kilowatts electric (kWe) power would be needed to support six crew living on Mars for about 500 days at a minimum.

Terraformer · 2018-04-14 03:41:48

I think a 1G centrifuge sleeping pod might provide an interim solution to the 0.38 G issue on Mars.

Louis, we use bed rest to simulate microgravity. Sleeping in a centrifuge isn't going to help much.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-04-09 15:19:38

The First Humans on Mars

#2 2018-04-09 19:42:07

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#3 2018-04-10 08:08:36

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#4 2018-04-10 09:50:30

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#5 2018-04-10 11:57:23

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#6 2018-04-10 12:38:41

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#7 2018-04-10 12:58:15

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#8 2018-04-10 15:42:30

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#9 2018-04-11 05:57:52

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#10 2018-04-11 12:38:26

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#11 2018-04-11 18:48:29

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#12 2018-04-12 15:16:49

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#13 2018-04-12 16:17:48

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#14 2018-04-12 16:46:36

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#15 2018-04-12 17:14:50

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#16 2018-04-13 05:33:13

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#17 2018-04-13 07:25:30

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#18 2018-04-13 08:05:45

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#19 2018-04-13 12:49:51

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#20 2018-04-13 13:23:55

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#21 2018-04-13 14:28:23

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#22 2018-04-13 15:25:05

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#23 2018-04-13 16:36:46

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#24 2018-04-13 20:10:48

Re: The First Humans on Mars

#25 2018-04-14 03:41:48

Re: The First Humans on Mars

Board footer