You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Anyone care to predict when the first human will land on Mars ?
I've been getting increasingly optimistic over the last 12months or so as it seems a lot of barriers are falling away. It looks like Space X will have the rocket/capsule capability within a few years.
My prediction: 2023.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
I still think we need to develop technology more so than plan missions. Lots of basic research and testing.. And there's got to be unmanned test flights..
Late 20s I think.
Offline
I'll go with late 20's to early 30's. I think we'll see a return to Luna first - these guys are visionaries, not idiots. They won't risk all their money on a single gamble to get one mission to Mars when that money is better spent on infrastructure.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
Ultimately, if it's in the next couple decades at least, it's going to be limited to when we have some nice close oppositions. The Viking missions went during an unfavorable opposition and Viking 2 took 333 days to reach Mars. On the other hand, the MERs launched during an extremely favorable opposition and Opportunity took just 202 days to make the journey. The next time we'll have an opposition like that will be 2018, but there's no way we'll be ready for a manned mission by then (in fact, NASA probably won't even have ANY mission, given the recent planetary science cuts...and ESA's own plans are in jeopardy as well). The next one after that will be 2035. So I suppose that's my estimate (give or take 2 years for the almost as good oppositions before and after). But I would predict we'll complete a robotic Mars sample return mission and perform manned missions to an asteroid or two in the 2020s (actually NASA is currently setting up a NEO survey involving amateur astronomers, in part to find appropriate objects for missions). We'll then perform a similar manned operation to a Martian moon ca 2030, and then we'll be all ready for a Mars landing.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
Offline
Well, I think it'll depend on infrastructure - with orbital refueling at EML1, you're not as restricted in launch windows.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I still think we need to develop technology more so than plan missions. Lots of basic research and testing.. And there's got to be unmanned test flights..
Late 20s I think.
We may see a return to the pace of development of the 50s and 60s because Musk has fundamentally changed the economics of space with low launch costs. If he gets it down to $1000 per kg to LEO, or below, and if he has cracked the EDL issue with cantered rocket jets then the whole scene is altered fundamentally.
Remember we went from a satellite launch in 1957 to landing people on the Moon in 12 years. The lunar landing R&D took about 5 years and included a couple of major rethinks along the way.
With the involvement of PRI and their billionnaire backers is there really anything stopping us now?
We won't just throw people at the surface of Mars any more than NASA threw people at the surface of the Moon. But as part of the mission programme there will be several years of testing. We'll probably have test flights doing figures of 8 around the moon and earth, gradually going further away from the protective magnetic field. We'll test people's capabilities to function after the long flight - perhaps by landing on the Moon and also on Earth where they will immediately have to function.
If it took 12 months from the first orbital craft to lunar landing I think we can get to Mars in 12 years now all the pieces are in place.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Well, I think it'll depend on infrastructure - with orbital refueling at EML1, you're not as restricted in launch windows.
It's true that will make the windows get wider, and in fact I think orbital refueling in some form will likely be part of any manned mission, but as Scotty said you "canna' change the laws of physics". Until we get orders of magnitude better engines (100 megawatt to 1 gigawatt class fission or fusion powered rockets that can perform burns for days not hours), we will be limited to near-Hohmann transfers for big missions. And as long as you're in the near-Hohmann regime, the closer oppositions really make a big difference.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Albert Einstein
Offline
I rather think that if we're lucky, there will be two government-funded "exploration" missions to Mars in the next 20 years. If we're really lucky, it'll be a coordinated and sequenced pair of mission objectives from the same government or consortium of governments.
If we're not so lucky, it'll be a duplicated first landing "exploration" by different governments. If we're not very lucky at all, there'll only be one government mission. Most likely, there won't be any. Not the way things have been going since 1972.
A government "exploration" mission is the enabling prerequisite for a privately-funded trip, generally speaking from 500 years' worth of history. The exception today is Musk/Spacex. But, he lacks a manned landing vehicle. His Falcon-9, Falcon-heavy, and manned Dragon, plus an inflatable spacehab module (perhaps from Bigelow), is pretty much all we need to get men to Mars orbit. But to the surface? Hmmmm.....
I consider it possible but rather unlikely that Musk might beat a government mission to put men on Mars, precisely because of the lander problem. One-way suicide missions are not the answer, although a Dragon might just be able to pull one of those off.
With chemical propulsion, and the rockets I named, it is fairly easy to stack up enough propellant modules, some engines, a spacehab module(s), some crew return Dragons, and maybe a lander or two in LEO. You end up throwing away all the propellant modules and perhaps all but the crew return capsules. But you don't need a gigantic rocket to do this. That gigantic rocket development development is why NASA is starved for money everywhere else, and it's just not necessary. Once you're at or above 25-ton shuttle payload sizes, only cost per unit payload to LEO matters anymore. We're there already, with Falcon-heavy and the Atlas-5 551 configuration.
With solid core nuke propulsion, you can do exactly the same slowboat job, except that you can keep most or all of your ship, and use it again for the second mission. If you can do that, then why not? Why launch all that stuff twice, and throw it all away both times? That's utterly stupid. Resurrecting NERVA for the Mars mission(s) is way to hell-and-gone far more important than developing another gigantic moon rocket from shuttle technology. Mars transit propulsion is what NERVA was originally for.
Radiation: two different types. Cosmic background 22-60 REM/year, astronauts currently allowed 50 REM/year, with an accumulated career limitation. Close enough even at worst I'd say we can get them there and back without killing them. But, one 2- or 3-year round trip is pretty much a career limit. No second trips. Solar flare: just requires some water and wastewater tanks around the crew as a suitable storm shelter. I'd make it the vehicle's flight deck, myself.
Microgravity disease: just build your vehicle as a long stack, put the hab on one end and the engines on the other. Spin it end-over-end. 4 rpm at 56m "radius" is one full gee. The ship should stack up way longer than 112 m long anyway. Also solves a world of problems cooking, bathing, toilet, etc. Just de-spin for maneuvers or docking operations, then re-spin for coasting cruise.
Consider sending the landers and landing supplies, and all the landing propellants, as separate vehicles assembled out of modules in LEO. Just send it/them one-way. Have it all waiting in LMO for the crew when they get there. Send the men with enough propellant to get home, in case rendezvous fails in LMO. Suspenders-and-belt. Dead crews are more expensive than anything else at all. Just ask NASA.
Myself, I'd solve the lander problem before I designed anything else. Those are dead-head payload. The more landings you make, the more landers you send, the more you have to launch from Earth, the more it all costs, and the less likely it'll ever get done. But, exploration is not "flag-and-footprints". What we did in Apollo with one trip-one landing was not really exploration at all. Don’t think like that. Too many still do.
If there were a single-stage re-usable lander, you don't have to send very many, yet you could still make a lot of landings all over Mars on that first mission. Chemical can't do that job. NERVA could. And push all the landing stuff to Mars, too.
Just some ideas to consider.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I don't think anyone here wants "Flags and Footprints" - and the good thing is that Musk most certainly does not. He wants to extend human civilisation on a permanent basis - he's quite clear about that.
I agree we want a belt and braces approach and for mission 1 it may be better to take the return propellant with us. However, on the other hand, we could still begin experimentation with robot production of rocket fuel on the surface (which the first arrivals could check for quality and operational use after landing). They might bring a weather rocket with them to test the rocket fuel...
Agreed about the double use of water...only thing, I have never heard anyone say whether the water is still potable after absorbing all that radiation...is it? Of course, if it's just waste water, that's OK.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Oh, the water is still potable: the only thing that will be being added is a few protons, and they're in the water anyway. It's just radiation, not radioactive elements.
I think we should ensure that the orbiter/ERV has enough fuel to get home, but maybe we can experiment with using ISRU to make dozens of landings around the planet? Say, land and unfurl the PV, to start producing fuel, and explore while it's doing that. The lander needn't mass that much. For safety, ensure you've got enough fuel with you, and use the ISRU to restock for the next mission?
I think we should park the mothership by Phobos, so we can significantly reduce radiation exposure. Maybe even fill up "sandbags" around the ship with Phobotion material while we're there.
"I'm gonna die surrounded by the biggest idiots in the galaxy." - If this forum was a Mars Colony
Offline
I didn't say it in my long post just above, but yeah, by all means take some experimental ISRU gear on the first mission and try it out. It's just not smart to count on it for crew survival on that first mission, because the probability is, it won't quite work right. Maybe not at all. That's just the nature of engineering development.
If the first mission really does get done right (and I think that is a low probability, given NASA's track record since 1972), then the second mission really could be based on the surface at one, at most two, sites, instead of LMO. Some better ISRU machinery prototypes could really get "wrung out" on a mission like that, but it's still just plain stupid to count on them for crew survival. My experience with engineering development (19 straight years) is that "second time up" still does not work well enough to serve. Doesn't matter what you are attempting, that's just pretty much a "given" in the real world.
That's why I'd like to see two properly-sequenced government missions before a corporate visionary takes over, like Musk. (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin = ULA sure as hell won't.) By that time, he will have both the lander and the ISRU technology, to really succeed at planting a proper base, one that might actually become a nascent colony.
Do it wrong or out of sequence, that colony just plain will not happen in the next century, at least. It'll take that base/colony a significant while (measured in years) to become self-supporting. That's been the history of things. That's also why ULA won't plant it: no short/near-term profit in doing it, unless the government pays them to do it. And I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I didn't say it in my long post just above, but yeah, by all means take some experimental ISRU gear on the first mission and try it out. It's just not smart to count on it for crew survival on that first mission, because the probability is, it won't quite work right. Maybe not at all. That's just the nature of engineering development.
If the first mission really does get done right (and I think that is a low probability, given NASA's track record since 1972), then the second mission really could be based on the surface at one, at most two, sites, instead of LMO. Some better ISRU machinery prototypes could really get "wrung out" on a mission like that, but it's still just plain stupid to count on them for crew survival. My experience with engineering development (19 straight years) is that "second time up" still does not work well enough to serve. Doesn't matter what you are attempting, that's just pretty much a "given" in the real world.
That's why I'd like to see two properly-sequenced government missions before a corporate visionary takes over, like Musk. (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin = ULA sure as hell won't.) By that time, he will have both the lander and the ISRU technology, to really succeed at planting a proper base, one that might actually become a nascent colony.
Do it wrong or out of sequence, that colony just plain will not happen in the next century, at least. It'll take that base/colony a significant while (measured in years) to become self-supporting. That's been the history of things. That's also why ULA won't plant it: no short/near-term profit in doing it, unless the government pays them to do it. And I can pretty much guarantee you that it won't.
GW
I think it depends who's doing it. NASA will be subject to all sorts of political and media pressures. A billionaires' club ultimately could probably mount the launch facilities outside the USA if necessary and go it alone.
However, I don't think it will come to that and I think that once the American public see they have a winner here they will back it because the American people love a winner. We may see a Space X-PRI mission with a NASA badge on it.
I think NASA communications remain a serious requirement for the mission and one it would be difficult if not impossible for a private mission to replicate.
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
The longer form of what I posted just above is now posted for all to see at http://exrocketman.blogspot.com, in the article dated 4-23-12. The details and all the rationale are there. I included no illustrations.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Based on current projections, 2045. +/-8 year accuracy.
Offline
2027-2028 (whichever year that launch windows falls) at the earliest. Why? By comparing with the history of other tech giants, I give SpaceX five years until they are in such a position that they can afford a full-on, self-funded Mars program and ten years to execute it. Add an additional five years for SpaceX's competitors (assuming they have the vision and drive, which none of them do).
Otherwise, I don't see Mars in the future of any national agency, out to any such time that can be reasonably predicted.
Last edited by Mark Friedenbach (2012-05-02 23:44:59)
Offline
Current NASA plans are to go to a NEO by 2025. Mars orbit sometime in 2030, and then land on Mars sometime after that.
No private company or consortium is going to foot the bill for a private multi-billion trip to Mars. There is no economic rationale.
PRI and SpaceX are working from NASA timelines because NASA is the primary customer. The earliest window for a mars landing is 2037 based on current policy.
Offline
Elon Musk/Spacex has nearly everything he needs to mount a private mission to Mars in about 10 years. It's something he's already said he wants to do, and he has the money to back it up.
In the next 2-4 years, he will have Falcon-Heavy and a manned version of Dragon flying. Those plus a Bigelow inflatable for the habitat module, and some sort of propellant tank module (fairly short development), are all that is needed to do a vehicle or vehicles assembled in LEO by docking that could take men to LMO. If he does it right, they'll have artificial gravity by spinning the vehicle end-over-end.
The real problem is a practical lander. He doesn't have one. No one does. Yet.
The lander and its propellant supply is a major dead-head payload item going to Mars (not coming back). Its size sets a major amount of what you have to assemble in LEO to go to Mars. Its design is a major enabling item for the design of the transit vehicle or vehicles.
If Musk is working on a lander design, he's pretty quiet about it. (One-way unmanned Dragons for probes and cargo can land, but cannot ascend back to orbit, so that ain't the manned lander design.)
The lander is a big deal. That's just hard numbers with the rocket equation, and fancy trick orbits won't fundamentally change that outcome. If Musk wants to go to Mars in the next 10 years, he'd better be working the lander issue. If Mars really is his goal, that's more important than a flyback reusable Falcon first stage.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Well, the reusable, flyback full-stack makes business sense--it'll keep SpaceX profitable enough to develop the rest of it (lander, habitats, etc.) on their own dime, even in the face of stiff competition.
Offline
Elon Musk/Spacex has nearly everything he needs to mount a private mission to Mars in about 10 years. It's something he's already said he wants to do, and he has the money to back it up.
In the next 2-4 years, he will have Falcon-Heavy and a manned version of Dragon flying. Those plus a Bigelow inflatable for the habitat module, and some sort of propellant tank module (fairly short development), are all that is needed to do a vehicle or vehicles assembled in LEO by docking that could take men to LMO. If he does it right, they'll have artificial gravity by spinning the vehicle end-over-end.
The real problem is a practical lander. He doesn't have one. No one does. Yet.
The lander and its propellant supply is a major dead-head payload item going to Mars (not coming back). Its size sets a major amount of what you have to assemble in LEO to go to Mars. Its design is a major enabling item for the design of the transit vehicle or vehicles.
If Musk is working on a lander design, he's pretty quiet about it. (One-way unmanned Dragons for probes and cargo can land, but cannot ascend back to orbit, so that ain't the manned lander design.)
The lander is a big deal. That's just hard numbers with the rocket equation, and fancy trick orbits won't fundamentally change that outcome. If Musk wants to go to Mars in the next 10 years, he'd better be working the lander issue. If Mars really is his goal, that's more important than a flyback reusable Falcon first stage.
GW
I thought discussions elsewhere showed that if you have enough fuel/propellant, you can decelerate and then land slowly, using cantered thrust. Part of the problem has been imagining that you have to arrive at hypersonic speeds.
Also, if the lander is small enough, you don't need that much fuel to decelerate. So the solution I believe is to pre-land your supplies and come down on an Apollo style lander (but adapted to the Mars atmosphere).
Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com
Offline
Louis:
You are correct about the possibility thrusted descent. I have a hunch that the canted thrusters on Dragon will be fluid dynamically stable for thrust during entry. I suspect that is in part why they are designed that way, in part just simple geometry without firing directly through a heat shield (although I believe that could be done, too). I wouldn't say killing all the velocity before entry was the wisest thing to attempt, but thrusting during hypersonic reentry could be a wise course, as long as not too many deceleration gees result.
The lander problem is less about descent (hard as that is on Mars) than it is the following ascent. Even with ISRU refueling on the surface, where would you put it in a Dragon? There's not enough space inside the heat shield-protected capsule for the fuel for a full thrusted descent, aerobraking of some kind must assist. The space where you could stash a lot of fuel would be in the trunk module, which you have to jettison before entry.
In fact, use the rocket equation and the required delta-vee yourself, at realistic mass fractions, and you find out that a chemical lander will have to be 3 or even 4 stages. You could get away with 3 (1 descent, 2 ascent) if you had a really big heat-protected ballute of some kind during a thrusted entry, with thrusted deceleration to M2.5-ish post-entry big chute deployment, and a final heavily-thrusted landing. You'll still need at least 2 stages to return to orbit. For a given payload of, say, 2 men and minimal equipment, the thing is still going to be huge. Remember, all such landers are dead-head payload that must be sent to Mars, even if not fueled for the trip.
300 sec-class Isp for storables, structural mass fractions in the 10% range for a throwaway vehicle, and the problem is very ridiculous, because each stage is the previous one's dead-head payload. Even at 450 sec-class Isp for LH2/LOX, it's still ridiculous, although you might get away with 2 stages, 1 descent, 1 ascent.
Compare that with 900 sec-class Isp with NERVA. 1 stage goes down and back up again, including a 30 degree plane change both ways, and no aerobraking assist, just rocket thrust all the way both ways. I used 20% structure for reusability, and 10% payload. 6 tons of men and equipment in a 60 ton fully-fueled lander. 6 tons returned, too. A real landing boat built tough, not some fragile throwaway toy like the Apollo LEM. You could carry a whopping lot more down, if you ISRU refueled on the surface.
Just wishing .....
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
Inside China’s plan to go to the Moon and Mars as work continues on private Chinese space station
Offline
NASA celebrated its 60th anniversary earlier in 2018
in Europe, April Fool's day but they can be happy drunk or stoned?
Cannabis decriminalised in Germany from 1 April
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/cannabis-decr … 26726.html
because the USA / NASA missed the 20th and the 50th Apollo Anniversary because it is taking Artemis program so so long to do a Moon exploration program so long, I'm more pessimistic and with current style of leadership want to put a station in circles around the Moon. So today with all these Left vs Right and Conservative vs Liberal political nonsense in newsfeeds I'm going to say it will be 2069 before they go to Mars, any other big multi national group, country Japan, ESA have no backbone for manned colonization of Mars, Canada has interesting science and links to NASA's manned flight but no budget and no ability to launch its own people, Roscosmos responsible for Russian space exploration seems to be an agency in decay.
However the Private Sector Space-X can do it quicker
and if another country for example South Korea, Brazil, India, China start putting more stuff up there it might force NASA to change its culture or another agency might be established.
NASA's 1st female chief engineer at Kennedy Space Center wants to put a space station around the moon
https://www.space.com/nasa-1st-female-c … teway-moon
Offline
Pages: 1