What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-11 13:20:07

GW-

GW Johnson wrote:

The dynamics of rigid spinning bodies has been well understood for well over a century now. We're really good at it. Balancing tires on cars is one application of it. Balancing gigantic steam turbines in power plants is another. And don't forget about propellers and windmill blades.
GW

This is precisely what Wernher von Braun understood back in the 1950s in his wonderful Collier's magazine articles!

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-11 13:24:05

GW-

GW Johnson wrote:

Louis and Oldfart1939:
I don't think NASA really wants to take on the Mars mission precisely because it is dangerous, and they have become extreme risk-averse. They have a Bigelow BEAM module on the station now, but are spending over a year just to open the door and go inside. Ridiculous!
It's also why spin gravity has been largely ignored by NASA management: microgravity disease is an excuse not to go. Just like galactic cosmic radiation exposure is brought up again and again as an excuse not to go. Solar flare radiation will be brought up as a reason not to go if the other two are knocked down. They will finally use confinement/insanity as the reason not to go: the crew needs space, which requires a big vehicle, and that is expensive (based on SLS costs and availability, not commercial launchers).
GW

It is spot on the real reason; also the reason Elon Musk has engineers in their late 20's and early 30's working for him. He isn't risk adverse to a stupefying degree!

GW Johnson · 2017-02-11 16:47:29

Hi Oldfart1939:

I like what you said about youngsters not afraid to try something new. The workforces at Boeing and Lockheed-Martin used to look like that, but haven't for a while. Now it's all fresh college grads expert at nothing but computer. They do run into GIGO a lot, now. The "smarts" used to be there, never at the government labs who hired them. Now it is nowhere.

I like to put one or two old hands into each working group of youngsters. The old hand has a lot of "that way hurts, don't do that" knowledge (art, never written down) that the youngsters don't have. But, being outnumbered, the oldsters don't impede new thinking by the group.

It's all in achieving the right balance. I used to be pretty good at that, managing company IR&D at the old defense plant before it closed, while at the same time being the go-to guy for ramjet.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-02-11 16:50:41)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-11 17:40:34

NASA needs some New Blood! SpaceX is making them look like a pack of doddering old fools. A new broom to sweep out some of the cobwebs would help, as well as undergoing a period of project rationalization. Too many fanciful concepts that will never progress further than burning up lots of research dollars. Get OUT of the Earth Sciences game that became highly politicized--out completely. Allow NOAA the opportunity to dig their own graves.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-11 17:55:06

Because NASA is only minimally accountable for the progress on a variety of projects, they simply become "bread and butter" for the engineers and scientists working on them. The error built in to cost plus contracts. Budget X dollars for Y goal; doesn't happen? Engineering group Z is looking for new employment.

It's essentially the difference between selling "research,' versus selling "a product."

louis · 2017-02-11 20:50:30

Space X has only one objective (and everything it does serves that objective). NASA has hundreds of objectives and the representatives of those objectives are embedded in every level of the organisation (all the different science projects) and also its external funders (pork barrel politics). That's why Space X will get to Mars and NASA won't (even though, if it found a way to get to Mars quickly that would actually meet the interests of all the players that influence it's decisions).

Oldfart1939 wrote:

NASA needs some New Blood! SpaceX is making them look like a pack of doddering old fools. A new broom to sweep out some of the cobwebs would help, as well as undergoing a period of project rationalization. Too many fanciful concepts that will never progress further than burning up lots of research dollars. Get OUT of the Earth Sciences game that became highly politicized--out completely. Allow NOAA the opportunity to dig their own graves.

SpaceNut · 2017-02-11 23:45:28

Give them an Iphone and they do plenty but a real computer they know nothing on how to use the programs let along find the help menu on them. I see it every day as I show them how to use the tools they aready have to make use of them.....I am that go to guy for materials used in repair work, for organization and for remembering an inventory that they should also know about but do not but are the one's that are in need of the parts.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-02-12 09:33:50

28 years ago, a guy named Robert Zubrin came along and rattled the cages of the established, old order space scientists at Martin-Marietta, and subsequently NASA. Then--the entrenched "old guard" started pulling out the Galactic Cosmic Radiation argument, along with the Bone Decalcification ploy. Cutting edge exploration is NOT risk-free! Did Magellan or Anson do all the risk assessments necessary before sailing around the world? Did Columbus do a risk to benefit study about the chances of sailing off the edge of the Earth before heading West? The hand wringing naysayers seem to have sway in the halls of NASA. The original 7 astronauts all knew they were volunteering for a high risk venture, and there are others just awaiting the opportunity to step forward and risk it all for the adventure, the science, and the growth of mankind into an Interplanetary Species!

SpaceNut · 2019-01-13 15:59:32

bump our topics are getting buried to quickly..

SpaceNut · 2019-01-13 17:35:57

The original post by RobertDyck is full of ISS action items to which hopefully Nasa has been making improvements on but I would not hold my breath.
The last item

ISPP demonstrator
NASA project managers have repeatedly stated they don't want ISPP on their project, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be reliable. Every technology was tested first sometime. This technology is long overdue. A Scout class mission can do it in one mission: land on Mars, a rover the size of Sojourner can collect samples, a small rocket can leave the surface of Mars to return to Earth, and a capsule similar to Genesis or Star Dust can re-enter Earth's atmosphere.

Seems to have gone quite as well as the topic we have in MARCO POLO/Mars Pathfinder

kbd512 · 2019-01-14 12:00:01

Oldfart1939,

The snow day associated with bone decalcification is already over, according to NASA's own scientists who study the phenomenon. They haven't simply slowed or stopped it, they've reversed it. The bone density of the astronauts returning from ISS is now greater than when they were launched, albeit not by much. It's a combination of the right types of exercises and exercise equipment combined with drugs. Apart from cardiac muscle atrophy, they've nearly reversed muscle atrophy. If they do that, we already know how to shield against radiation and all the physiological snow days disappear. It then becomes a question of how reliable your life support and propulsion technologies are.

Oldfart1939 · 2019-01-14 16:25:14

kbd512-
It's not the exercise regimen that has enhanced bone density, but the hormonal manipulation therapies I knew about back in 2007 when I first started looking at the problem. Calcitonin is the hormonal peptide regulating bone density. Use it. Problem solved.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2019-01-14 16:25:47)

kbd512 · 2019-01-14 17:48:39

Oldfart1939,

Poor choice of where to place the 4th sentence from my commentary. It should've been after the 5th, or should be the 5th. Anyway, I'm only relaying what NASA's scientist had to say about these issues. I'm not a medical doctor and don't play one on TV. My understanding was that the bone density issue was solved and the muscle atrophy issues are almost resolved. My basic point is that only the radiation snow day still exists and only from the standpoint of GCR, thus we're running out of valid physiological reasons not to do this mission.

louis · 2019-01-14 19:03:37

I'd say we're good to go!

SpaceNut · 2019-01-14 19:29:22

Interesting Calcitonin opposes the effects of parathyroid hormone (PTH), which acts to increase the blood calcium level. Calcitonin lowers blood calcium levels by suppressing osteoclast activity in the bones and increasing the amount of calcium excreted in the urine. So its an anti stone medication....

Oldfart1939 · 2019-01-14 22:46:07

SpaceNut- Calcitonin is THE drug of choice for treatment of osteoporosis here on Terra. Been around for at least 30 years.

louis · 2019-01-15 04:50:33

Where are we on the issue of immune system decline in zero G? Are we any further towards understanding what is going on there? Obviously the chances of picking up an infection is small on a space mission (although some infectious diseases e.g. cold sores can be suppressed within the body and then flare up and become infectious again, so it can't be ruled out). But does this weakening of the immune system affect overall performance of individuals whilst on the space mission and does it have serious effects on return to Earth.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-07-04 05:55:43

A big thing will be testing new diggers, the new design of rovers, A.I robots, construction machines see if the Mars equipment is actually workable, how to have a mini excavator or design a mining robot to mine Mars? None of this can be done on the ISS but the ISS is very useful for long duration human space flight experiments. New concepts will keep coming, a robot builder lands, redesign the entire bulldozer for another planet, a car drives and delivers building material, a 3D printer printing material for a Mars base....all this before the arrival of humans.

Other news

Cygnus supply ship ready to end four-month mission
https://spaceflightnow.com/2021/06/29/c … h-mission/

Growing Vegetables in Antarctica in the EDEN ISS Project
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=54922

Space expansionism, geopolitics, and the future of humanity: My long-read Q&A with Daniel Deudney
https://www.aei.org/economics/space-exp … l-deudney/

'Noah's Ark' in space? Japanese researchers successfully preserve genes of mice on ISS
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/ … nes-space/

How does urine recycling system work in China's space station?
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/270 … ce-station

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-06 11:26:27

NASA recruiting astronauts for a Mars mission close to home
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/sci … /mars-nasa

European company designs a space station with artificial gravity
https://phys.org/news/2023-05-european- … icial.html

NASA successfully recycles 98 percent of urine and sweat into drinking water on the ISS
https://interestingengineering.com/inno … weat-urine
NASA demonstrated a 98 percent water recyclability rate on the ISS for all wastewater, including sweat and pee.

Light Nuke reactor?

Russia floats idea of building nuclear plant on surface of moon by 2035

https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/ru … id/2005132

old topic
https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=3802
Coherent Mars plan

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2024-03-06 13:13:09)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2017-02-11 13:20:07

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#102 2017-02-11 13:24:05

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#103 2017-02-11 16:47:29

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#104 2017-02-11 17:40:34

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#105 2017-02-11 17:55:06

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#106 2017-02-11 20:50:30

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#107 2017-02-11 23:45:28

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#108 2017-02-12 09:33:50

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#109 2019-01-13 15:59:32

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#110 2019-01-13 17:35:57

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#111 2019-01-14 12:00:01

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#112 2019-01-14 16:25:14

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#113 2019-01-14 17:48:39

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#114 2019-01-14 19:03:37

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#115 2019-01-14 19:29:22

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#116 2019-01-14 22:46:07

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#117 2019-01-15 04:50:33

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#118 2021-07-04 05:55:43

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

#119 2024-03-06 11:26:27

Re: What we need to go to Mars - short term projects

Board footer