You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I have never agreed with Zubrin's prinsipal that a 400 day mission would only need a 5 man crew to be completely successful. I am of the opinion that for a successful mission, a crew of at least 8 is required (2 Engineers, a Biochemist, a Geochemist, 2 Geologists, a Meteoroloist and a Medic). I was wondering what anyone else regarding crew size and composition when it comes to a successful mission. What does anyone think?
Offline
Like button can go here
Welcome Excalibur,
I have thought that the initial exploration does reguire a crew of a minimum of 6 but that we should send more than one mission at a time. This allows the possibility of rescue and of improved science.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
It would all decide what the mission should be and what you intended to accomplish or what your going to spend on it and/or what kind of technology we have on hand when we make the discussion. The number of people that we could be sending to Mars could bounce over the place. Also how soon we go to Mars could also have an impact too.
But, I'm assuming that we are talking about a five to ten year time frame. So I would say anywhere to between four to twelve people. If your going with chemical rockets, four people of the equation because to the problem of getting a chemical rocket big enough to launch more than four to six people. If we are going with fission rockets, we will have a tendency to go to the higher side, because of the efficiency of the nuclear rocket as compared to the chemical rocket. If you were going to do just an Apollo type mission, you would tend to go for the smaller numbers people crew. If you were going planning a future colony on Mars, then you would probably aim to high side of twelve people or so.
I would tend to aim to the high side of 10 to 12 people, because more people can do more on a long distant mission like that. It take more resources to do it, but if we are going to commit to doing it, we should commit to doing and get serious about going to Mars.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
It does depend alot on the size of the rocket, how much risk you are willing to take, and finally what you intend to do on the mission...
Four is probobly the absolute minimum sane to keep a small group of people glued together mentally for three years, and six would probobly be preferable. For flags/footprints or minor construction, four is probobly the smallest number you could convince congress to send anyway... six to eight ought to be around the minimum you could get alot of work done with, 2-3 flight engineers/pilots one of which with telerobotic meteorlogical, and miscellenous skills... one microbiologist/biochemist (with medical skills?)... and two geologists/geochemists.
Frankly, it wouldn't be easy, but I don't think that it would be horribly difficult to build a clean-sheet rocket with exsisting engines that would have a single throw payload of nearly 200MT to LEO that could accomodate six to perhaps eight with chemical engines. The massive 5-segment Shuttle boosters paired with the RS-68R engine could do this in a rocket not of much greater magnetude then the Saturn-V of old. It might be hard to "man rate" such a big rocket though.
Another option would be to build Shuttle-C, able to throw 100MT, for the minimum practical development and instead spend it on massive TMI rocket stage and launch the vehicle in two or three pieces and join them in orbit Russian style, then send up the crew in CEV.
The nuclear option could be done, and it would make direct flight to Mars practical with a Shuttle-derived rocket with six or make a clean-sheet rocket capable of sending more then eight people.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
For base maintainence and stuff like food production your going to need 2-3.
For any kind of science survey your going to going to need another 2-3.
For any serious base construction your going to want at least 10.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
Look at ISS, and extrapolate...
The more stuff to maintain, the more people you need...
Offline
Like button can go here
Well, depends on what this mission is for !!!!, If you are doing an Apollo-style mission to go their and plant a flag type action and some limited scientific activities, then smaller crew (4-8).
But if this is a part of a larger strategy for outpost development then I would set clear goals and then select a 8-12 person team and also provide unmanned cargo vessels to voyage under the human vessel command, to mars to set up an initial landing site and preparation site for the larger outpost.
Within the unmanned cargo supplies could be large robotic units for site preparation work, that could be controlled from landing site. Also the type of mission would then determine the infrastructure in geostationery orbit for communication, planetary navigation and warnings.
Offline
Like button can go here
Time of mission is also a factor when it comes to crew size but also with regards to the time allocated for doing the science per quantity of personnel needed to carry it out and maybe time sensitive to how fast it must be done with said same quantity of crew.
Overlapping missions is a must, which also means that they at least must land at the same site to make the most out of the man power to carry things out.
Offline
Like button can go here
Pages: 1