Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-14 21:24:57

A book and BBC production this last fall described in great technical detail a hypothetical "manned Grand Tour" type of mission with a five man international crew aboard a large fusion propelled ship.

Members of the crew land briefly on Venus, Mars, Io, Titan,Pluto and finally a comet. The landings on Venus and Io are of course very brief. Given the rather brief landings in the scope of the total six year mission time, the whole exercise seems like a colossal "flags & footprints" type of mission.

But I wonder, given as much serious thought as obviously went into the book and program just how feasible such a multi target mission would be

Thoughts?

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-15 14:22:10

With a high energy density fusion plant and refueling at destination systems, it would be hard but not impossible to travel the solar system in span short enough for people to endure. Thats a pretty long ways off though.

Landing on Venus is never going to happen, the conditions there are so extreme that its not really practical with any solid material.

Io would be a challenge due to the very high radiation. A heavily shielded lander perhaps, with a high-power magnetic field might let you walk around breifly around the landing site.

Pluto isn't really much of a destination, its just a big asteroid. Its distance would mean you would probobly want to leave it off your trip itinerary.

Of course such a trip would be a flags/footprints trip, it takes a while to get form one world to another, even with a high-energy fusion engine.

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-16 00:08:38

The vessel detailed in the broadcast and book does indeed use a fusion engine and prepositioned fuel stocks around the solar system.

IIRC, the Venus manned lander is built alot like a deep sea submarine while the lone astronaut to venture out wears a spacasuit similiar to a deep sea divers suit to withstand the heat and pressure.

Also, the Io lander does have superconducting magnets to help shield the astronauts from the intense radiation.

One must consider that the mission outlined had to be made so it would look good on television. Perhaps that is the reason for the short stay times on each world and the relatively small crew.

A vessel as large and sophisticated as the Pegasus shown in "Voyage To The Planets" could probably support a crew of at least a dozen and stay times of months rather than days at each target planet.l

I've wondered if maybe we're thinking about manned space exploration to the planets the wrong way. Instead of constantly trying to reduce mass, cut costs everwhere possible, perhaps a large "Battlestar:Galactica" approach might be better.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-16 00:38:27

Ever try to make a deep sea submarine fly?

A space suit would have enough coolant for a few seconds, maybe minutes, tops if it were chilled with liquid helium in a backpack. A tether would be cumbersome and would itself absorb an awful lot of heat. And, since you can't really run a nuke efficiently on Venus (nowhere cold to dump heat) you'd be stuck with only stored power for short stays.

The trouble with a "galactica" style aproach is that everything has to be launched off Earth with rockets a the moment, and rockets aren't all that effective, even big ones. Orbital construction and fueling on that kind of scale gets awfully expensive, awfully quick. The NASA DRM plan for Mars calls for zero orbital construction or fueling.

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-17 22:16:48

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the approaches outlines by Robert Zubrin.

Direct launch, no orbital assembly, in situ resource utilization.

But I do like to keep an eye out for the high technology "big plan" approaches from time to time

And the idea of a "manned grand tour" of the solar system has certain appeal. Especially when in the back of your mind you worrythat every manned spaceflight might be the last.

Austin Stanley · 2005-12-18 06:58:30

I guess the biggest diffrence bettwen Voyager's "Grand Tour" and this one is that Voyager didn't have to stop. It just made a quick fly-by of the diffrent planets it passed. The propelent necessary for breaking is pretty much a deal breaker, even for high tech options like GCRN. Maybe a supreamly high ISP fusion engine could carry the fuel to stop and start at multiple planets but most such designs have very low thrust.

In the Space Odessy duo (or maybe just 2010 Space Odessy) they aerobreak into Jupiter (Saturn? maybe) outeratmospher to stop. I wouldn't want to risk this, especialy given the intense radiation belts the Gas Giants have.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-18 08:43:19

The high-end of the theoretical range for a GCNR engine would do the job if you only had to carry enough fuel to reach your destination. Most of the outer planets have moons with water ice.

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-18 11:13:30

Thanks GCN.

By the way is there ar reason that "Gas Core Nuclear Rocket" is part of your name?

I would swear you sound like Stanely Borowksi (hope I got that name right) the noted nuclear rocket scientist.

Just mentioned it because I've followed some of the mans work and have been interested in it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-18 11:33:09

I picked the name after I read about the concept of the engine years ago. The engineer in me was just giddy with the elegance of the concept and how it side-steps the problem of the core melting. The chemist in me (my trade), who is becomming more anti-environmentalist by the day, takes special issue with the general ignorance about the inverse relationship between half life and radioactivity plus the dosage dependance of radiation or heavy metals poisoning.

It is one of the only two engine concepts that wouldn't require a radical leap in any science except vapor-core nuclear reactors to make regular (read: colonization) flights to Mars or exploraiton of the outer planets practical. So, me being the nuclear fanboy, put two and two together.

Dayton Kitchens · 2005-12-18 13:07:10

I'm a big fan of nuclear power myself though my current science certification is only to teach at the 8th grade level (I plan to complete my full certification for teaching Earth & Physical science throughout high schoo. Teaching and coaching is a truly rewarding occupation to me).

Wasn't there an early 1970s era mission plan that called for a gas core fission engine rocket that would send a manned mission to Mars? One of the older Opposition class plans that was fashionable back then? I seem to remember seeing it in one of the space books of that era.

It had a rocket shaped central core with what looked like an early space shuttle on the nose end. The central core housed the engine. Tanks of hydrogen were then clustered around the core in two groups os six each. the external hydrogen tanks were jettisoned enroute as used.

GCNRevenger · 2005-12-18 13:57:20

Yes, something like that. A GCNR engine would be great for exploring Mars, but at the moment with NASA money being so tight, such a project probobly isn't justifiable. With the big 125 metric tonne rocket that Mike Griffin wants to build, there isn't any big reason not to go to Mars with cheap chemical engines.

The NASA DRM-III mission plan, the one I currently reguard as the best way to get to Mars, is tailored for a launch vehicle in the 85 metric tonne range: with the big 125 tonne rocket, the solid-core nuclear engine could be substituted with a larger chemical engine without signifigantly impacting the payload.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-01-15 19:08:59

I finallly got to see the video version of this today. It differs in that the mission returns to Earth from Saturn instead of pressing on to Pluto.

Even then, it is an impressive, realistic looking program.

While I'm all for Mars Semi-Direct to Mars and HOPE (Human Outer Planets Exploration) to get to Jupiter................I'm wondering if this kind of "Human Grand Tour" project (perhaps two separate missions) might be the way to go to get to Mercury, Venus, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto.

Got to admit the scientific return woujld be staggering.

Commodore · 2006-01-16 18:47:11

Oh sure they cut the most intresting part out of the broadcast version.

I don't think a manned grand tour is ever going to be practical. Even an unmanned tour creates more questions than answers. Plus I think the Voyager missions were launched to take advantage of rare alignment when the gas giants were all in a nice arch. Probably won't happen again for hundreds of year.

Our best bet is to develope our own Moon, then repeat the cycle on Mars. After that we aught to be good at sending the right equipment to make stuff out of local resources. Then we pick one large low rad, atmosphere free moon to develop at each gas giant. Probably Calisto, Rhea, Titania, and Triton. Once established they can provide the resources needed to carry on to the others.

GCNRevenger · 2006-01-16 19:08:35

Nah, I don't think there is a need to build up bases near each body to generate worthwhile and sufficent scientific knowledge. A single mission to all the outer planets? Probably not, but multiple missions powerd by advanced fission or fusion systems (GCNR, NSWR, VCRfis+VASIMR, fusion+VASIMR) to each body seperatly are possible.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-01-16 19:32:05

Agreed. GCN.

It would be quite a concept. A fleet of five Outer Planets Mission ships, Jupiter (Callisto), Saturn (Titan), Uranus (Miranda) Neptune (Triton), and Pluto all assembled in Earth orbit at roughly the same time using common components and basically the same types of propulsion systems.

I don't have a clue as to costs though. But who can say what the U.S. and other contributing nations might be capable of in 30 to 40 years or so.

Commodore · 2006-01-16 21:19:12

Nah, I don't think there is a need to build up bases near each body to generate worthwhile and sufficent scientific knowledge. A single mission to all the outer planets? Probably not, but multiple missions powerd by advanced fission or fusion systems (GCNR, NSWR, VCRfis+VASIMR, fusion+VASIMR) to each body seperatly are possible.

For pure science maybe not. Although theres so much ice in the moons it makes sense for return fuel.

Austin Stanley · 2006-01-18 13:38:26

Again, the concept of a "Grand Tour" Voyager-Style relies upon simply doing fly-bys of the planets in question for gravitational assist, rather than actually stopping in orbit and doing some landings/research. Otherwise, the propulsion and time requirments become prohibative. I suspect we could build another mission around these lines if we wanted to, but really what is the point? A simple fly-by is going to recover alot less data than a dedicated mission, and will cost as much if not more.

To me the real potential of planetary allignments that make Grand Tour style missions possible is to use those gravitational assist to send probes out to explore the limits of our solar system (helipause and what not).

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-01-19 21:08:16

Note, when I say "Grand Tour" in the context of manned missions, I'm NOT referring to Voyager type flybys or to actual planetary alignments.

I'm referring basically to using a single manned spacecraft to visit multiple planets in a single extended mission.

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-01-23 15:40:49

This could be done with Conventional Rockets, under two conditions.

1) Reliable solid rockets that Work in Deep Space After long cold Slumber.
2) Right Alingment of planets.
3) Proper Achitecture

There was a time in the 80's when the Planets WERE alinged so that in theory
a Ship sent on an Eliptical orbit, with Perehelion being just inside A venus Orbit,
would come close to ALL the planets on the outward journey, Except for Mercury. (not that you coundn't go Perehelion near a Mercury Orbit, but THAT would be Dangerous)

The mission shipware constists of Mothership + Mutliple Planetary landers

If we conceed that a Mothership with a crew of 8 can reach the last planet in 7 years on this orbit, We must realize that the return time is 6 years for a total of 13+ years, this would break mere mortals IMO.
What is needed once the Pluto rendezvous is reached is a Much Faster Return, Aiming for a 18 month y return Jouney.
What would be needed is a Powerfull cluster of Solids Awaiting Our Explorers in Orbit about Pluto. Because You see the only time the MOTHERSHIP will Slow to Orbit a Planet will be Aphelion, close to Pluto, since it will have the lowest energy near that point it's logical to fire onboard engines at that point, to be able to rendezvous with your Return Engines.

The Landers are actually Far more difficult to design, owing to their multipurpose.
They must:
1) have Life Support for two crew, for 3 weeks.
2) survive a Solid booster Kick to push it ahead of the Mother ship, (ahead by several days Since this will add to the Exploration time.
3) Braking, Deorbit, Re-Orbit, and Speed up to catch the Mothership.
4) The Landers must Reusable/refittable by the Mothership Facilties/Crew
5) Must be able to land and operate in Temps from 40C to -280C.

The Landers to be used for a Mercury and Venus Landing, ARE NOT Part of
the Mothership complement, they are lauched separately from earth orbit,
as they are USELESS for outer planet/moon exploration. Their paths would
be timed so that Astronauts on the mothership an easily taxi to them on
the Inward journey. Before you say that building a Venus Lander is Impossible,
let me remind you that NO ONE HAS TRIED to build one, given a very good
test facility (Yes one that is under 80 atmopheres and 900F hot. I am certain
someone would come up with a solution.

For both Venus and Mercury we are talking about a few hours on their surfaces,
admitedly, flags and footprints, but let see how long before someone else tries it.

what does the mothership look like? Why it's a rotating cylinder, with the
Crews working at the ends.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Launched in 20 segments of 20 feet each. 40% of the Mass is Water Tanks, for shielding and supplies. 20% liquid fuel. For course corrections and Pluto Orbit insertion. The Central Portion has All the 4 of the Landers, and the Engines. and
maybe most important of all, A view deck which counter rotates. (the equivalent of
periscope time on old time subs.) The majority of the sections have their own Basic Lifesupport, capacity. This means heat,water,O2/CO2 exchanger, it's all set up so that even if 40% of the sections life suport fails the crew will still survive.

Now we need a crew....GNCRevenger...did I see you Raise your hand???

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-02-09 23:23:22

I'm appalled at the lack of interest or even conversation ANYWHERE that I can find about possible manned missions to the gas giants.

Aside from the HOPE site, there appears to be not even talk about such missions.

SpaceNut · 2006-02-10 12:13:34

Sorry Dayton but there is not much to talk about lately other than baby steps. The shuttle being what it is and the fact that the next man capable ship is many years away from being able to fly. At this time if one used some Russian hardware mated to some stages to extend there capability. A ship could be constructed but not that I want to be beholding the the Russians do we really want America's space program that way?

Commodore · 2006-02-11 17:17:15

I'm appalled at the lack of interest or even conversation ANYWHERE that I can find about possible manned missions to the gas giants.
Aside from the HOPE site, there appears to be not even talk about such missions.

I think the trouble is no one seems willing to make the commitment in life support technologies needed for the jump to the multiyear transits. All the buzz surrounds get to Mars with the least amount of effort as possible, which I fear will have disasterous results. We are fighting tooth and nail to get out of LEO for what most is hoping to be a short detour to the moon, followed by more downtime for a very limited mission to Mars. Anything beyond that would require more downtime to invent entirely new architecture for anything beyond.

I favor a long term build up on the moon to develop all the long term quasi self sufficent LSS needed for the decade long voyages long before we go to Mars. There should only be one jump, from near Earth Space to interplanetary space, and it should be done on the Moon. And while we are there we can do all the surface activities that we will do anywhere else.

Dayton Kitchens · 2006-02-12 21:13:36

I don't know. I"m against long downtimes to develop infrastructure and technology.

In the case of the space program, I'm afraid that it would be another "shuttle" situation where the "first step" to a larger program becomes and end in and of itself.

One thing Dr. Zubrin had exactly right, you've GOT TO have the destination in mind in order to develop the technology.

Saying, "we'll develop the technology that will enable us to do this is" is the completely wrong approach.

What should be said is "we want to go to Mars (or somewhere else). What technology do we need to do it?"

Commodore · 2006-02-14 21:11:08

We need to look larger than any single destination. The very same 35m x 10m rigid hab launched on a CaLV will function just as well in LEO, the Lunar surface, interplanetary space, Callisto, Pluto, or even Mars if equipped with a heat shield. Only when we get the large internal volumes needed for long term quasi-seft sufficancy can we think about the long voyages and planetary stays. Having as many common components as possible will make that possible.

And it can start right on the moon. As soon the current crop of systems come online in 2018, we start on the rigid hull and its EDS. At first maybe just a 3rd or 4th of it will be actual living space, the rest a rover garage, lab, oxygen collectors, perhaps some brick makers, or equipment for working with other minerals, and of course water collecters. They'll be intended as the first wave of outposts to support 6 months of continous occupasion for 4 to 6 people. Later the very same basic hull can be used as all pressurized space for living quarters, lab space, workshops, greenhouses, or all unpressurized for mining equipment. Ulltimately a whole bunch of them will be bundled together to serve as interplanetary craft, or full fledged surface bases.

With the core module developed, we can deploy them cheaply on the moon, and move on to other things like advanced propulsion, simulated gravity, and active radiation sheilding systems.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-23 09:57:49

The vessel detailed in the broadcast and book does indeed use a fusion engine and prepositioned fuel stocks around the solar system.
IIRC, the Venus manned lander is built alot like a deep sea submarine while the lone astronaut to venture out wears a spacasuit similiar to a deep sea divers suit to withstand the heat and pressure.
Also, the Io lander does have superconducting magnets to help shield the astronauts from the intense radiation.

this BBC tv show sounds more like a scifi episode than something based on fact

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-12-14 21:24:57

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#2 2005-12-15 14:22:10

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#3 2005-12-16 00:08:38

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#4 2005-12-16 00:38:27

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#5 2005-12-17 22:16:48

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#6 2005-12-18 06:58:30

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#7 2005-12-18 08:43:19

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#8 2005-12-18 11:13:30

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#9 2005-12-18 11:33:09

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#10 2005-12-18 13:07:10

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#11 2005-12-18 13:57:20

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#12 2006-01-15 19:08:59

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#13 2006-01-16 18:47:11

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#14 2006-01-16 19:08:35

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#15 2006-01-16 19:32:05

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#16 2006-01-16 21:19:12

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#17 2006-01-18 13:38:26

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#18 2006-01-19 21:08:16

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#19 2006-01-23 15:40:49

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#20 2006-02-09 23:23:22

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#21 2006-02-10 12:13:34

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#22 2006-02-11 17:17:15

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#23 2006-02-12 21:13:36

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#24 2006-02-14 21:11:08

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

#25 2006-03-23 09:57:49

Re: Would A "Voyage To The Planets" Type Mission Be Possible?

Board footer