Manned Mars Mission?

Decimator · October 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">pondering</div> I was wondering just how difficult it would be to have a manned mission to mars. I had heard that there was probably water there and I found this: <a href='http://cooltech.iafrica.com/technews/960383.htm' target='_blank'>linky</a> which says that there is likely ice slightly under the surface. So what does everyone think about this, could it be pulled off?

SkulkBait · October 2003

The largest limiting factor in sending manned missions to Mars is the travel time. To get from Earth to Mars by conventionaly means would take something on the order of 2.5-4 years , which means that the craft carrying the crew there would have to carry huge ammounts of supplies for the journey there, the time spent on Mars, and the journey back. Not that we shouldn't try, but in the wake of Columbia there seems to be this "space exploration is unsafe so it shouldn't be tried" idea going around. Well duh, safe is a very relative term when you strap 7 people in a flying brick propelled by 7.8 million pounds of thrust and launch them out of the atmosphere. But it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying. The men and women of the various space agancies around the world know what the risks are and take them anyway, for the better good of humanity. Hopefully the Chinese competition can give NASA a little kick in the **** and get our space program back into gear.

Burncycle · October 2003

The largest limiting factor is politics.

We COULD have gone to mars quite some time ago, and it continues to be an option. Just depends on whether we have enough insentive to do it.

This isn't the cold war, I seriously doubt we'll have a new space race. At least not to the degree of the first one.

Twex · October 2003

I wonder about the incentive myself. What exactly do we <i>want</i> on Mars? I get the "go where no man has gone before" part, but does that justify the millions of dollars it costs?

Dread · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Oct 18 2003, 08:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I wonder about the incentive myself. What exactly do we <i>want</i> on Mars? I get the "go where no man has gone before" part, but does that justify the millions of dollars it costs?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Would you say that same thing to Wright brothers? "There is no point in that airplane thingy you are working on. Why are you doing it?" <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

X_Stickman · October 2003

I don't think it's the amount of supplies it would have to carry. I mean, we have the technology to build a space station in space, we can do the same with a shuttle. hell, we don't even need to do that. Launch a shuttle, dock it with the space station. Launch a few more filled with supplies and fuel, fill her up, and send it on it's way. Without the immense amount of fuel needed to break out of the Earth's gravity, fuel shouldn't be a major problem.

I think getting a manned shuttle to mars would be relatively easy compared to some of the other things we have done. But then there is the effects of no gravity on the astronaughts(sp?). It has been proven that the longer you spend in space, the more damage is done to your body (muscles deterioate, the heart actualy shrinks etc). And with a trip that is about 6-8 years there and back, this is a major problem.

You also have to find a crew that is willing to leave their families for such a period of time, and because of the length of time in space, there's no guarentee that they'll come back. And even if they <b>did</b> make it back, the effects of gravity on their bodies after almost a decade in space would kill them.

Fantasmo · October 2003

Don't have much time but I'd liek to clear some stuff up.

Orbit of Earth - 365 Days
Orbit of Mars - 687 Earth Days

The most fuel-effecient trajectory will require us to wait for the optimal orbital alignment between Earth and Mars. This juxtaposition occurs every 26 months.

Launching at the optimal time, it will take the spacecraft <b>259 Earth Days</b> to reach Mars. The next time Earth and Mars are in the optimal orbital alignment again will be in <b>455 Earth Days</b>. The astronauts will be required to spend 455 Earth Days on Mars. The return trip will take another <b>259 Earth Days</b>.

Total Mission Time to Mars and back to Earth is <b>972 Earth Days</b>.

<i>NASA Mission to Mars Data from January 2001</i>

I'll be back later to tell you about some of the major problems. I see a few mentioned here (ie. Long-Term Habitation in Zero Gravity and the affect on Bone Density) One I don't see mentioned here is the radiation from our Sun (Coronal Mass Ejections & Solar Flares) and Gamma Ray Bursts from space.

2_of_Eight · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Oct 18 2003, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What exactly do we <i>want</i> on Mars?  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
1. When our Sun ages, it'll grow. Temperatures on Earth will, and it will not be habitable anymore (it'll take about 3 billion years, I think... will we be alive?)
2. Not enough space on Earth - if the population continues to grow at the current rate, there will surely not be enough space for everyone in about 1000 years... no? (sorry, I don't have facts, I only know that it'll be 8.1 billion by 2050)
3. Yeah, what you said. To go where no one has gone before.
<i>same with trips to the Moon, to Earth's uninhabitable poles, to Everest, etc</i>

Manned Mars Mission?

Comments