ISS to Mars?

[kyle_baron]

After watching Mars Rising on the Science Channel a thought occured to me. In the program, they said a mission to Mars would require more mass than the ISS. So, why not strip the ISS down to it's living modules, and attach a large booster to them, and send it to Mars as living quarters for the astronauts? This would be recycling, at it's highest efficiency. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

There is no heat sheild. It would have to be Nuc to be able to propulsively brake into orbit (that might not be so bad). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Gotta give you points for coming up with such a creative way of getting rid of it.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[pberrett]

I think the idea has merit but could use a little refinement.<br /><br />We aren't going to Mars for a while so why not add a few fuel tanker modules (with rocket fuel) and stock it full of water and food.<br /><br />Add a VERY large Xenon drive and then slowly propel the station onto Mars. It can be slowed down as it approaches Mars so that the station can be captured by the planet's gravity. If necessary some rocket boosters can be fitted to help slow down the station.<br /><br />It can then be parked in a very high orbit around the planet until such time as we visit there<br /><br />If and when we decide to go to Mars we don't need to stock as much stuff for the journey as half of it will be waiting for us there.<br /><br />cheers Peter

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Gotta give you points for coming up with such a creative way of getting rid of it. </font><br /><br />It's better than having another space station fall thru Earth's atmosphere, and land in the ocean. After all the cost and energy expended to lift it to LEO. It's a lot of habitable space moving at the necessary speed of 17,000 mph. All it needs, is a little boost. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />I think the idea has merit but could use a little refinement. </font><br /><br />That's what I'm looking for, more refinement. And your suggestion is doable IMO. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Little? More like little times 100. It is a worthwhile concept, but somehow you would need to brake it into orbit once there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br /> somehow you would need to brake it into orbit once there. </font><br /><br />If it were unmanned, then it wouldn't need to get there in 2yrs. Mars could make several orbits, while the ship is enroute. It would only need to intersect Mars orbit at a future date. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

what about L1 or L2 of Earth-Moon System?

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Why would you want to put a space station at E-M-L 2? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I thought we were talking about the transit vehicle the crew would use. How were you thinking the crew would get to Mars? Rocket packs? (Just kidding.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

We haven't yet learned to keep the ISS functioning for the length of time it would take to get to Mars (let alone get back) without re-supply from Earth. In fact, learning how to do that is one of NASA's goals for the ISS.

 

[scottb50]

At the rate things are going I doubt I would want to ride to Mars in a 40 year old vehicle anyway. It would be like taking a DC-3 from New York to LA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[richalex]

It is my understanding that the radiation levels in Martian orbit would be lethal to human life over a fairly short period of time. Indeed, the radiation levels on the Martian *surface* might be lethal to human life, never mind in orbit. ISS has virtually no radiation shielding. <br /><br />Then, there is the matter of temperature and energy regulation. Martian orbit only gets about 1/4 the solar power that Terran orbit does, so the ISS would only get about 1/4 the power she currently gets. And, the temperature of an object in Martian orbit might be lower than the temperature in Terran orbit, partly because Earth reflects more light and heat back to space (and to ISS) than Mars would. <br /><br />Then, there is the matter of maintenance. It is just a matter of time (probably not very much time) before the stabilizing gyros on the ISS go bad, again, and the batteries are already coming due for replacement. <br /><br />All told, ISS isn't suitable for human life in Martian orbit.

 

[qso1]

The idea itself has merit. I think its doable but its cost thats gonna be a problem. An extensive amount of modification would be required to the ISS to transform it into a mars transit vehicle and while its doable technically, it would be expensive. The question becomes, is it less expensive to do it than to just start from scratch with a mars transit vehicle designed for that role from the start? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />what about L1 or L2 of Earth-Moon System? </font><br /><br />I think a better idea would be to load it up with fuel and food, and orbit it around the moon, as a weigh station for the lunar base. From there, maybe send it to mars, as transit vehicle or supply ship. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />At the rate things are going I doubt I would want to ride to Mars in a 40 year old vehicle anyway. It would be like taking a DC-3 from New York to LA. </font><br /><br />Understood. However, propulsion systems and launch vehicles, will be much faster in the future. Either nuclear or plasma will get us to Mars in weeks, rather than years. Spending a few weeks in an old tin can, wouldn't be that bad. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Then, there is the matter of maintenance. It is just a matter of time (probably not very much time) before the stabilizing gyros on the ISS go bad, again, and the batteries are already coming due for replacement.</font><br /><br />Understood. ISS would have to be stripped down, gutted, and remodeled. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The question becomes, is it less expensive to do it than to just start from scratch with a mars transit vehicle designed for that role from the start? </font><br /><br />Yep, that is the bottom line. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[pberrett]

I think some readers may have misunderstood what I was suggesting. I would not recommend the ISS as a transit vehicle. <br /><br />However it could be stocked as a sort of supply vehicle and then sent to Mars using a big Xenon drive. It might take a couple of years to do the trip but once there you have a fully stocked space station for people to live on for a while.<br /><br />Sure it would need modification for radiation shielding etc but it would serve as a practical outpost and would be of greater use circling Mars than circling the Earth.<br /><br />As for maintenance just build the complex bigger with lots of spares before sending it to Mars. Add extra fuel supply modules, food larders, radiation shielding, a few landers, perhaps a high quality telescope for Mars observation and then propel it over there. <br /><br />A home away from home. <br /><br />The alternative is what happened to Skylab - arguably a huge waste of a scarce resource. It costs so much to put modules up in orbit. They should all be recycled or be reused in some way. Imagine if Skylab had been kept - it could have been added to the ISS to give extra space.<br /><br />cheers Peter<br /> <br /><br />

 

[usn_skwerl]

with some modifications, the same could be done with bigelow's balloons, or we could even kick the dust off the old External Tank station concept, but instead of having 10 ET's or however many, one or two could be used and fitted to the ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

pberrett:<br />The alternative is what happened to Skylab - arguably a huge waste of a scarce resource.<br /><br />Me:<br />Arguable for sure as Skylab was not a terribly expensive project to begin with. At $2.5 B dollars in 1972, this was a bargain and would be even now. Another point, Skylab was always planned as an interim station, a stop gap between the end of Apollo and the station NASA planned around Apollo hardware that was to have become operational in 1975 or 76. That station was axed before Skylab even went up. Then when Skylab was operational and NASA planners saw that the lab was going to re-enter sooner than originally forecast, they saw the potential for its rescue by shuttle. Of course, shuttle was behind shcedule as the Skylab rescue tug was nearing approval (1977).<br /><br />Skylab would now be over three decades old if attached to the ISS and we all recall comments in the press about "Rattletrap Mir" which was less than two decades old when being called that.<br /><br />Some would argue that ISS was a waste because of the time it took to become operational and it has yet to be utilized in its full capacity as a laboratory. The ISS program dates back to 1984...the first element was launched in 1998 and it is still under construction nearly a decade after. Far longer than what was planned for the Von Braun mars missions proposed in the late 1960s. This because NASA chose to forgo development to save money on an HLLV while spending half a bill for more shuttle flights to haul the modules and other components to orbit.<br /><br />Best way to get our moneys worth is to get the ISS done and operating in its full capacity. There is no real reason why ISS could not be operated well into the 2020s (Unless something unforeseen surfaces) in which case, we would probably get our moneys worth although research cannot be justified solely on monetary savings alone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Skylab was an experiment in setting up a working space lab. It would have been an even better one had they worked with the second state as a wet lab experiment, rather than discarding it. To this day, we have done little in that area...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[turbopause]

Wet lab environment?

 

[h2ouniverse]

in reply to<br />---------------<br />Why would you want to put a space station at E-M-L 2? <br /><br />---------------<br /><br />1) To serve as a relay/safe haven for the future lunar base. (E-M L1 & L2 are close to Moon)<br />they are relatively stable = /> less fuel needed to keep it there + they are passes in the grav wells curves, making them efficient stops.<br />2) EML2 would be a good base for radio astronomy btw<br />3) EML1 and 2 are more or less fixed points in the sky when viewed from a lunar base (the equivalent of a GEO position for Earth), making them easy communications relays. Especially, you can have a link to/from a far-side base via EML2 plus GEO satellites. Also you can observe your lunar base (and its surroundings) in a permanent way.<br /><br />Regards.