It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A trip to the planet mars and back.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   
I'm trying to think how a trip from earth and to the planet mars would need. What would be the cost? What kind of equipment would N.A.S.A. need? How long would it take to plan and execute this mission? Anyone who knows about this subject feel free to tell me what you know.
edit on 5-3-2011 by paranormal78 because: incorrect spelling on thread title




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I think they would first need to know how to spell "planet" correctly.


edit on 5-3-2011 by amongus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 
oops my bad.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by paranormal78
Anyone who knows about this subject feel free to tell me what you know.
I'll tell you what I know. There is one problem I'm aware of that nobody has successfully addressed, to my knowledge.

Remember in the moon missions some conspiracy folks said we couldn't have gone to the moon because the radiation would kill the astronauts? The reasons it didn't kill or seriously injure the astronauts includes:

The mission was brief, only a few days. It was a bit of a calculated gamble that there would be no CME hitting the moon while the astronauts were there. The CMEs are infrequent enough that it was a tolerable risk for a moon mission. We can't say the same thing about a Mars mission where it would probably take at least 6 months to get to Mars and the total mission might last over a year. Over the course of a year, the chances of the astronauts getting exposed to a CME turns from unlikely, to likely.

Even the additive effects of lower level radiation during such a long mission are significant relative to the moon missions. Here is more reading on the subject:

Space Radiation Too Deadly For Mars Mission

Space Radiation Could Be A Mars Mission-Killer


According to a tentative NASA estimate, a trip to Mars and back would give a 40-year-old non-smoking man a 40-percent risk of developing fatal cancer after he returned to Earth, twice the terrestrial risk.

Glory would be certain; early death a strong probability.

Shielding options include placing the spaceship in a large protective mass, such as huge sphere of water five metres (16.25 feet) thick, which would provide similar protection to standing at an altitude of 5,500 metres (18,000 feet) on Earth....

Cost alone is likely to make these ideas unfeasible, leaving mission deciders with the nightmarish task of determining what is an acceptable level of risk for the men and women who will go to Mars.


I can imagine a huge sphere of water 5 meters thick. I can't imagine such a spaceship being economically viable. Look at the huge costs of just sending a lunar lander that looks like it's made out of tinfoil to the moon. Every single ounce cost a fortune. So how many fortunes would a huge sphere of water 5 meters thick cost?

Maybe an economical solution will arise, but it will be a small miracle if it does. I don't see any easy answers and apparently neither does anyone at NASA so far, unless they are willing to accept the fact that the trip will give the astronaut(s) a premature death.
edit on 5-3-2011 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
Find below Robert Zubrin's testimony to the Augustine comission. You may find the answers you seek within. In my opinion he nails it on many levels.

www.thenewatlantis.com...

If given the opportunity experienced engineers and scientists would take the increased cancer risk involved in the journey phase. Its worth it.

When magellan circumnavigated the globe less than 20 made it back out of a crew more than 200. If our society would provide the funds, individuals would provide the courage.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I, for one, would be willing to take that risk for the adventure (and science!) of it. Look at the early astronaut corps, some of them didn't make it either (Apollo 1), heck Apollo 1 didn't even get off the ground. One idea I've heard put forth to deal with a CME would be having a special module on the spacecraft that would be shielded, that astronauts could take sanctuary in. I'm not a scientist or an engineer so I really don't know how feasible the idea is, though it sounds logical enough to me. The prolonged exposure to other radiation though I don't know.
The Earth's magnetic field is what protects us all down here from all that radiation, maybe there is some way to produce a strong enough magnetic field on the spacecraft? Maybe make the entire outside shell of the spacecraft one big electromagnet, powered by a small nuclear reactor such is used in some satellites/probes? I'm not sure what technologies they'd have to develop to work on the spacecraft in such an environment though.
Without overcoming these obstacles, humankind will never move out into space and explore/colonize other planets, thereby dooming humanity to die with the planet (assuming were still around to see it!)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Off the top of my . with our current rocket science, we would need to somehow lift extra fuel into orbit to later somehow attach to the voyage ship and since you would not want to lose the momentum you gained by reaching orbit this task appears very daunting indeed. The Saturn 5's that went to the moon for instance with the fuel they had would take 2 years to get to Mars, more fuel could mean more speed thus a reasonably shorter trip but you need lots of heavy fuel and we aren't going to be able to get all of that to take off and escape earth's gravity because the more you add the more apparatus you need and the heavier things get to the point of a stalemate where you have to burn all of that extra fuel just to lift it all and it's containers.

That's just the start of the issues.

One has to consider the risk/reward factors in sending men instead of robots out that far. What really is a man going to do that a robot can't? A robot doesn't need life support or food, and can operate in the frigid cold nearly immune to solar radiation. We sent men to the moon strictly for national pride and to slap the Russians in a cold war victory, while they enjoyed all of the other ones. I can't stress enough that the investment return ratio seems to be practically nil.


edit on 5-3-2011 by Illustronic because: spelling error

edit on 5-3-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
i'm sure i read somewhere that a scientist has an idea where the components to make oxygen are put in some kind of container along with components to make fuel,all sorts of other things needed for a trip to mars.
the capsule would leave 9 odd months before the astronauts which means they do get there all the things they need are waiting for them.
the only problem is getting humans there,sounds like it would be a 1 way trip though

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

it's a few years old but the idea is there
edit on 5-3-2011 by rhynouk because: found link



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by rhynouk
 
I actually have a somewhat good maybe practical idea. What if they had a mars base that could automatically deploy once it gets there? That mission would half to be entirely unmanned somehow. And the crew that makes it there can check everything when they arrive. I'm pretty sure some scientist at N.A.S.A. has probably thought of this idea at one point. It might be on the drawing board somewhere already.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranormal78
reply to post by rhynouk
 
I actually have a somewhat good maybe practical idea. What if they had a mars base that could automatically deploy once it gets there? That mission would half to be entirely unmanned somehow. And the crew that makes it there can check everything when they arrive. I'm pretty sure some scientist at N.A.S.A. has probably thought of this idea at one point. It might be on the drawing board somewhere already.



it's a good idea,i've heard from many people that it seems the best way to get around the weight issues of the module.
whoever the crew are must be able to sort out problems themselves & have alot of knowhow of electronics.

the only problem is funding but if nasa said they were going to do it i'm sure the money wuld come from somewhere



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
We have the ability to get to Mars in 39 days.

VASIMR VX-200 plasma rocket

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.universetoday.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The people suggesting a self deploying base are not too far from the mark.

You should read up on 'Mars Direct'. There is a plan to do this, has been for a long time. No new great generational advances in tech are required.

All thats missing really is political will to fund and direct engineers to execute the plan.

I also commend the VASIMR research as the obvious way to improve the transit time. Thus cutting down in cancer risk for the astronauts.
edit on 5-3-2011 by justwokeup because: typo

edit on 5-3-2011 by justwokeup because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
Find below Robert Zubrin's testimony to the Augustine comission. You may find the answers you seek within. In my opinion he nails it on many levels.

www.thenewatlantis.com...
An excellent read, thanks. I'm not sure if he's accounting for inflation, but even if he's not, he does make a strong argument for the greater productivity of NASA during the Apollo era.


If given the opportunity experienced engineers and scientists would take the increased cancer risk involved in the journey phase. Its worth it.

When magellan circumnavigated the globe less than 20 made it back out of a crew more than 200. If our society would provide the funds, individuals would provide the courage.
Good point. If a suicide bomber is willing to kill himself for something as stupid as blowing up a building, then certainly someone willing to die prematurely for such a noble cause as space exploration should be an option on the table.


Originally posted by JJRichey
I, for one, would be willing to take that risk for the adventure (and science!) of it.
I admire your courage. I would have taken the Apollo risk, but I haven't seen any technology presented yet where I'd find the risk acceptable for a Mars mission. The 5 meter thick sphere of water shield I mentioned would be fine and the concept is easy with existing technology, except for the part about getting that much water (and a suitable container for it) off the ground. There may be alternatives though, like building a moon base and extracting all the water needed for that shield from one of the moon's polar craters.


One idea I've heard put forth to deal with a CME would be having a special module on the spacecraft that would be shielded, that astronauts could take sanctuary in. I'm not a scientist or an engineer so I really don't know how feasible the idea is, though it sounds logical enough to me. The prolonged exposure to other radiation though I don't know.
I'm an engineer and of course it's feasible, but as you pointed out the prolonged exposure to non-CME radiation would still be an issue. Not only that, but you'd still have to get huge amounts of water, lead or other shielding material up for the sanctuary, so that's still a big problem, just not as big a problem than doing it for the entire ship where the amounts would need to be larger. Also how big will the ship be? If you look at Apollo, The capsule that splashed down in the ocean was already pretty cramped. I can't imagine a radiation sanctuary much smaller than that. Now if the ship to Mars is much more spacious, then yes a smaller, more heavily shielded sanctuary might make sense.


The Earth's magnetic field is what protects us all down here from all that radiation, maybe there is some way to produce a strong enough magnetic field on the spacecraft? Maybe make the entire outside shell of the spacecraft one big electromagnet, powered by a small nuclear reactor such is used in some satellites/probes? I'm not sure what technologies they'd have to develop to work on the spacecraft in such an environment though.
I like the way you think, you have some good thoughts on this for someone who's not an engineer!


Yes that's also potentially feasible, and as you correctly point out there would be some engineering challenges with that approach which may possibly require the development of things like improved shielding for spacecraft components if they are going to be running an onboard large electromagnet. It may be every bit as possible as the water shield, and may have as many engineering challenges, but it might boil down to what can be done the most economically. I also have a small question about the possibility of human effects from an onboard electromagnetic shield. Also remember, the Earth's shield allows some higher levels of radiation to strike Earth in the polar regions which the Earth's atmosphere blocks and gives us the polar aurorae in the process. In the spacecraft you might also be funneling radiation into the poles of the electromagnet. But it may be possible to do this and then make smaller water or lead shields near the poles instead of shielding the whole ship with water or lead.


Without overcoming these obstacles, humankind will never move out into space and explore/colonize other planets, thereby dooming humanity to die with the planet (assuming were still around to see it!)
I think the obstacles can be overcome. We just haven't got the proper incentive to do it yet. But they are significant obstacles, and I'm not sure we could do it within a decade with complete safety. If the astronauts are willing to accept a large risk of premature death from radiation exposure, we could do it within a decade. But perhaps they should go a. and get their corneas replaced before the mission. I think something like 36 of 39 Apollo astronaut developed cataracts prematurely, and the radiation from the Mars trip will probably worse than Apollo no matter what we do. I wouldn't want to arrive on Mars only to discover my vision was clouded by cataracts so I couldn't see. Then the premature death wouldn't seem as worthwhile if I'm half blind when I get there.

But I agree, we do have to get off this rock, we've probably got something like a billion years before the oceans start boiling away which will destroy all life on Earth.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
There was obviously a greater commitment with the Apollo program because come hell or high water we were going to the moon regardless of the percentage of the GNP it took. The Shuttle era is not less productive than Apollo, just has a different objective, the twist of the facts are that most satellites and deep space probes aren't launched by the Shuttle! But for the life of the Shuttle 10x more man made missions where sent into space than during the Apollo years. I hate how facts are twisted to support conflicting ideals.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join