[NASA is full of crap] Space experts warn Congress that NASA’s “Journey to Mars” is illusory

We're going to need a faster propulsion system to go to mars -- mission time with current tech is way too long.

 

The Robots won't care how long it takes.

 

"Questionable?" I'll let that pass. Judo, I seriously doubt if anything you could say to me would make me "feel better" about the Chinese government and their intentions in the near and medium term in that region and elsewhere. The reason I mentioned the South China Sea was to give an example of why our country, our allies, and other actors in the region and beyond simply don't trust China's government. China is busy trampling international law and bullying the smaller countries in the area, but put that aside for the moment without discarding the "trust" issue. When China goes to the Moon with the intention of setting up bases, which they have every intention of doing, I just don't believe that we will sit back and not respond, and respond by returning to the Lunar surface and setting up bases ourselves in conjunction with our allies. Part of the driving force behind a return to the Moon, a large part, will be China's actions in the South and East China Seas. In other words, the actions of today will drive the actions of tomorrow.

As Putin is busy destroying trust in Russia in Europe and the Middle East by his actions against former Soviet states and his active support of the internationally condemned Assad regime (among other things), China is busy doing the same destroying of trust in her own region. That destroying of trust by China and her government will cause us to not stand idle while China sets up bases on the Lunar surface. It's not that I think China will declare that she "owns" the Moon, but rather that we will fear her actions are creating essentially the same scenario, and as a result I certainly think we will return there, and we will use Orion to do so. Eventually, private enterprise will be heavily involved. As for the ISS, I can't picture this country abandoning an incredibly expensive base very useful for activity in low Earth orbit, as a valuable way station to the Moon when we return in response to the Chinese, as a base for potentially countering incoming asteroids and comets that are a threat, and as a very useful place to assemble a Mars expedition in low Earth orbit when we get around to going there. Not until we have built a new and cheaper replacement for the International Space Station, at any rate, which I think we will do in time using technologies being developed now.

All in my humble opinion, naturally. I just hope I live long enough to see us do a lot of the things I mentioned. -

One method I have read about, KC (wish I had a link), would be having several spacecraft constantly using the near planets as slingshots for increasing and maintaining their speed so that they would have at least as much gravity as Mars for their passengers. We would construct spacecraft in low Earth orbit able to match their constant speed and dock, allowing the passengers to enter the ferry (I'll call them trucks for purposes of this post). When we reached Mars, we would undock, go into orbit and descend to the planet. Spacecraft that had "hitched a ride" on these trucks that are in orbit around Mars would be reached from the surface, and using fuel refined there (as has been pointed out, the ingredients exist to create the fuel we would need), they would match speeds with the trucks, the passengers would move to them for duration of the trip, detaching when approaching Earth. Robotic spacecraft would resupply these trucks, while other spacecraft carried passengers to and from them for the trip. Because of the high speed attained and maintained by the interplanetary trucks, the trips to Mars and back would be much faster than current scenarios, reducing the exposure of the passengers to radiation in the heavily protected craft. As they would be essentially weightless when built in Lunar orbit, we could bring up Lunar soil to use for shielding. It could be several feet thick, whatever it takes. Bringing it up from the Moon would be relatively easy, there being so little gravity. I hope you're following my poor attempt at explaining this. An example of at least a bit of the idea, an idea I read about a few years ago, is in the film The Martian.

 

What do you mean by vibrations at high speeds? That's only true moving through a fluid such as our atmosphere. In space you can move at 100kmph and not experience vibrations.

 

I don't think getting to Mars is as easy as people make it out to be.

It will take a lot more than 2 trips to get all the supplies into orbit and than you have to also build the ship there as well. The other issue is that storing that kind of fuel is going to take new technology because in space you have all kinds of heat and freezing going on and that's not good for volatile space fuel which also escapes at a fast rate.

Not to mention that landing on mars is a nightmare - landing a rover was incredibly hard - people forget that unlike the moon, Mars has an atmosphere so you have to have re-entry. Problem is that Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere - so slowing down is a big problem.

Remember how hard it was to land a rover on Mars? Imagine something that's a lot heavier that had people in it...this ain't no moon landing...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ki_Af_o9Q9s?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I hate to sound like a PRC apologist but this does sound a lot like Cold War rhetoric. I don't want to defend the PRC's actions in the South China Sea and agree they are provocative and dangerous to regional stability. Just saying that since the PRC is seizing and control and building up capabilities on islands in the South China Sea to that meaning that they will do the same elsewhere is a very big stretch. It ignores the both the historical and present context of why the PRC is active in the that region. Hint, the name should tell you something.

Outside of it's immediate surrounding the PRC foreign and national security policy isn't one of expansion. The PRC has engaged in soft power through trade, economic aid and technical aid to several countries, often countries that the West shuns for moral reasons. It hasn't though engaged in building bases or trying to control territory. The PRC actions regarding SE Asia are more akin to the Monroe Doctrine than they are to US or Soviet Cold War or even the strategy of the colonial powers.

The fear that the PRC will try to claim the moon, "A Red Moon", is very speculative. It might sound good as a rallying cry to get the US behind expanded space program but doubtful. As stated the PRC doesn't do far flung colonies but also while the PRC space program has made impressive gains still isn't as technological advanced as US or as capable as the Russians. Further for years there have been many warning signs regarding the PRC economy that are just now starting to reveal themselves and a fear of an actual recession might happen. The PRC might find a risky and expensive program for a Chinese Moon might not be feasible.

 

Not to mention why on earth you would want to put a fragile human being onto a largely perchlorate soil. It's just not very smart. Maybe as punishment? Mars could become a penal colony! Australia II!

 

I think FB was talking about launch and not cruising. I'm sure vibrations are an issue but I have a hard time seeing it as a big issue. During launch as was noted in the right stuff the astronauts are little more than ballast. As long as the vibrations aren't lethal I doubt that not seeing the screens are going to be a big issue.

FB if you have some more other info including from direct sources I would be very interested in seeing it. That said I just don't see this as an issue that would cripple a manned space program to Mars. There are so many many other issues that seem more pressing. Mainly just to keep these bags of bones and jelly that both consume and excrete intact on a journey of millions of miles through hard vacuum and hard radiation. Being able to see the screens seems like a very minor issue.

 

China is a large country with more than three times the people in the us. It's not hard to imagine their ambitions shifting and them taking a larger openly aggressive role flanking us global policy when all of the resources become scarcer and economically crippling.

We might have a good two decades before that happens, but with climate change and the dying oceans, I too would be worried about China's increased spending in military and r&d. I mean Americans casually shrug on the thought of our government blowing up the brown people and supporting corrupt kingdoms for freedom gas. It's quite unsettling the lengths a power would do to appease public sentiment in order to retain or grow political control.

Not sure if the moon would be worthwhile, but who has really drilled into the moon...

 

No kidding. What you showed of course is just one aspect (landing). Saying it is easy and ready right now is belittling how amazingly difficult it would be and would reduces the positive psychological impact of the actual mission.

And with all the challenges and costs, I would still love to see we push for it.

I think as with the moon mission, there would have to be many new ideas, methods and technologies for a successful manned Mars mission.

Equally as important, human walking on the moon was an awe inspiring event that jump started everything we see in space today. A human walking on Mars could do the same and start the next wave of space programs.

 

No problem. I'll ask for some more information this next week, and give you what I find out.

But I will restate that it wasn't that it couldn't be worked around with time and money, but it was something that prevented them from using the exact same technology as used in unmanned space craft.

 

This.

 

Assemble in earth's orbit, not Mars - I read a report that the trip to Mars would require a ship that could not be launched from the ground here, you'd have to build the space craft in orbit around the earth thus that is why NASA first has to develop better rocket tech prior to a trip to Mars. You'd have to send two ships to Mars, one ahead of time with the supplies, and then if that got there safetly, you'd send the humans.

You can use parachutes for a rover but not anything that will have a human in it. It's simply too much weight. It's much easier to land something on the moon because it has no atmosphere, or earth because it has a ton. But on Mars you get the worst of both worlds literally. Not enough atmosphere to slow a large spacecraft down, and too much atmosphere that you don't have to worry about re-entry.

There's no way to use a parachute to slow down what's needed to survive on Mars.

 

I've always thought that on a scale of 1-10, Mars' perchlorateness is at least a 7 and arguably a 9.

 

My understanding is that it's nearly impossible to get a large spaceship off the ground from earth to Mars because the weight and size of it wouldn't be able to both overcome gravity and air resistance -maybe that's what FB was talking about. So you would have to make a ton of smaller launches and then assemble the thing in space.

The other problem isn't the time to get to Mars, nor the speed, but the amount of fuel you would need. Fuel can't be kept that long in space. It A) evaporates and escapes and B) tends to blow-up if exposed to alternating heat and cold which is what happens.

The landing you describe works for a rover, but it doesn't translated when you increase the weight. Getting a 1 ton car to land is different than a 36 ton ship.

And then there is this thing called radiation.


I found the article I had read - it's worth a read: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-05/31/getting-to-mars

 

That is certainly an option but is probably unlikely due to the amount of space based construction -- just look at the cost of building the ISS in LEO. The best option is an upscaled ion engine -- it's old tech that we have used successfully on multiple missions. The Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres used ion propulsion that exerted thrust that would feel like a piece of paper resting in your hand. The thrust is minuscule, but it never stops -- if we can increase this power by several factors then reaching mars in a month (or less) becomes feasible.

A quick trip to mars eliminates the extensive list of problems for a long duration mission outside the protection of the earth's magnetic field. A quick trip to mars also means we don't have to stay on the planet until its orbit brings it close to earth again. With current tech it would take about 170 days to get there, 500 days on the planet, and 170 back home. Keeping astronauts alive for that length of time (about 1 year in space and 1.5 on the planet) just isn't possible with today's tech. However if you can get there in a month and return in a similar amount of time the astronauts aren't stuck on planet for a year and half and the logistical problems preventing the mission disappear. With a fast ship the massive build up of support systems isn't necessary -- the astronauts are there and back on one ship. We are still a long way away of course because Ion engines that produce significant power don't exist beyond theory and other engine designs such as nuclear rockets are a long way off and remain untested.