Manned landing on Mercury

[remcot]

What are the possibilitys of a manned landing at Mercury? Will it be dangerous or just not. And What is the difference between a Mercurylanding and a Moonlanding? Lets discuss about how and when it can happen in the future.

 

[nibb31]

Assuming we had the technology to get there in the first place (we can't even get to mars yet, so mercury is probably out of question for at least the next 50 years...) and a reason to do so...<br /><br />You would have to cope with the environment, where the temperature ranges from -170°C at night to 350°C during the day time. A solar day on Mercury lasts 178 earth days. <br /><br />Other than that it would probably be similar to landing on the moon. <br /><br />But the question is... why ?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What are the possibilitys of a manned landing at Mercury?</font>/i><br /><br />Slim to none, and I think that is being generous.<br /><br />Mercury is an odd ball in that a day on Mercury is actually longer than a year on Mercury. But because of this, the boundary between the sun side and the dark side could potentially be survivable. I once read an article about sending a rover to Mercury that would continually move around the planet to stay in this border region of light and dark. But that paper was speculation at best, and doing this with a human crew is something different. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Mercury is much deeper into the Sun's gravity well, so getting to Mercury and then slowing down to orbit and/or land will probably be very difficult.<br /><br />Finally, I don't think there is much of any motivation to send a human crew. Getting motivation to send a robotic probe there was hard enough.</i>

 

[Leovinus]

The only reason I'd want to go would be to simply see the sight of a giant star in the sky (with hefty sunglasses on, of course). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Aetius]

I like the idea of [eventually] establishing a colony on Mercury because of the planet's abundant solar power, its [probable] treasure trove of ices in permanently shadowed polar craters, and the possibility of utilizing solar sails to launch large payloads of heavy industrial equipment to the outer solar system.<br /><br />Someday, I think that Saturnian and Uranian space will both be host to human colonies created to support the helium-3 extraction industry (as a fuel for fusion reactors). A manufacturing colony in Mercury's polar regions could export goods to the gas giants <i>without</i> the use of nuclear electric and fusion powered cargo ships that rival the cost and complexity of a Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Its gravity also approximately equals that of Mars, which may be more hospitable than the 1/6 Earth normal gravity found on the Moon.<br /><br />The Moon, the near Earth asteroids, and Mars will probably all see human footprints before Mercury does. I think the former two could actually make money in the near future for Earthbound investors, and frankly Mars just sells itself for a lot of people as a longer range goal.<br /><br />Mercury would be a bit harder to get to, but on the bright side the natural barriers of higher delta-v requirements and increased solar radiation might make it less attractive as a target of conquest by expansionist Great Powers on Earth.<br /><br />As I said, I don't see it happening for a long time. Perhaps people living on the Moon might be more open to the idea. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[starbaby57]

Until we have a powerful and "power-dense" propulsion system, a manned flight to Mercury will be out of the question (in my opinion) Unless traveled rapidly, even with shielding the radiation environment would be horrendous on the trip in and out. Solar sails would be great for cargo trips outwards. However, once we did reach the surface, mining into the surface would yield a temperate, radiation shielded environment. And I suspect the big attraction at Mercury should be large deposits of valuble metals, judging from the density and the apparent "stripping" process that seemed to go on in the formation of the inner solar system. True, there is no economic justification right now, but eventually, and perhaps about the time we have the propulsion we will also have the need. But never say never...

 

[mattblack]

I'd bet Mercury's regolith is just LOADED with Helium-3. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

I think the biggest problem with sending a manned mission to Mercury will be the huge energy requirement (ie. big rocket).<br /><br />It would probably require a larger delta-V than going to Mars (although I'm just guessing here - does anyone know the requirement?).<br /><br />Of course there's also radiation and heat. If a massive solar flare is a problem for crews on their way to the Moon or Mars, it would definitely be a problem on the way to Mercury. The heat itself shouldn't be too much of a problem, as you could build a quite light and thin "shield" providing shadow to temperature sensitive parts of the spacecraft (covered with solar cells?).<br /><br />For Mercury-walks the astronauts could wear an outer heat shielding on their suits. They might be quite bulky, but it might work. In a place with virtually no atmosphere, all you need is a shade to be cool (of course on Earth, many cool people wear shades as well). But it is easier to create heat in a cold environment than it is to get rid of it in a hot environment.<br /><br /><br />Since Mercury is probably "the least interesting" of the more or less reachable planets, I believe a manned Mercury mission would happen decades after landings on Mars and several asteroids.<br /><br />But at least it's easier than Venus. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[remcot]

But i hope that an (unmanned) mission to Mercury will take place very soon. I am thinking about a Surveyor like lander like we had or i must say (have) on the Moon ,that will take a lot of photographs of the surface of Mercury ,or we can send a pair of rovers like we have on Mars but with heat and radiation shields. And 1 of the rovers can land and drive at 1 of the poles of Mercury and another one can land and drive at the equator of Mercury to see and explore Mercury's surface at different places and different Sunheights. What do you think about this idea?

 

[brandbll]

I wrote a post about this a while ago. I never really thought of manned missions but i thought robotic ones could be very interesting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">i hope that an (unmanned) mission to Mercury will take place very soon.</font>/i><br /><br />Well, the MESSENGER orbiter was launched in 2004 but will not reach Mercury's orbit until 2011. I suspect even if NASA got the greenlight to start planning a lander mission today, I bet humans will be on the Moon before the lander reaches Mercury.<br /><br />My guess, however, is that a lander mission would not be planned until the data from MESSENGER is harvested and analyzed. Best guess for a lander then? Maybe the 2020s.</i>

 

[n_kitson]

The ESA has a mission to Mercury called BepiColombo. It was to have consisted of an orbiter and a lander, but if I recall correctly, the lander was eliminated recently.

 

[brandbll]

That really sucks. I'd like to see us try and put more landers on other planets and moons. I'd think it would draw more interest from common people. I know when Hyugens happened i couldn't get enough of it. Hell, i still can't get enough of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[remcot]

When you land on Mercury at the time of its (closest) point to the Sun (perihelion) at the equator (Caloris Basin) how will that be? Will it be dangerous then? And how will the Sun feel on your skin when you have a spacesuit or a lander with allround glasses? Can you answer this few questions?

 

[n_kitson]

Here's a little more on BepiColombo. So, it seems that the lander may have a glimmer of hope, if the Russians decide to come aboard:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />BepiColombo is a joint Cornerstone mission of the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) to the planet Mercury. The mission is still in the planning stages so changes to the current description are likely over the next few years. Due to budgetary constraints the lander portion of the mission (The Mercury Surface Element, or MSE) was cancelled, but could be replaced with a Russian one.<br /><br />The mission as currently envisioned involves two components: the Mercury Planetary Orbiter (MPO) build by ESA and the Mercury Magnetospheric Orbiter (MMO) build by JAXA. The two components are planned to be launched together on a Soyuz-Fregat launch vehicle in August 2013. The spacecraft will have a six year interplanetary cruise to Mercury using solar-electric propulsion and Moon, Earth, and Mercury gravity assists. Arriving in Mercury orbit in August 2019 the spacecraft will have a 1-year nominal scientific life. The MPO will be equipped with eleven scientific instruments provided by various European countries including visible imagers, a laser altimeter and an imaging X-ray spectrometer. Russia will provide a gamma ray and neutron spectrometer.<br /><br />BepiColombo is named for Giuseppe (Bepi) Colombo (1920-1984), scientist, mathematician and engineer at the University of Padua, Italy, who developed the gravity-assist maneuver commonly used by planetary probes today. The Mariner 10 spacecraft, which conducted the first flyby of Mercury, was also the first craft to exploit this maneuver.<br /></font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>When you land on Mercury at the time of its (closest) point to the Sun (perihelion) at the equator (Caloris Basin) how will that be? Will it be dangerous then? And how will the Sun feel on your skin when you have a spacesuit or a lander with allround glasses? Can you answer this few questions? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Not sure if you are referring to surface temperature here. Mercury actually has a lower maximum surface temperature than Venus.

 

[nibb31]

Remcot, landing on the moon is dangerous. Deep-sea diving is dangerous. Flying a hot air balloon is dangerous.<br /><br />Yes, landing on Mercury would be very dangerous.<br /><br />How would it feel? Very hot if you land on the day time side. Extremely cold if you land on night side. I already gave you the temperatures from Wikipedia.

 

[alokmohan]

What is present position now?

 

[mattblack]

Also, you'd be deep in the Sun's gravity well in the vicinity of Mercury. The amount of heat and radiation shielding you'd need to survive would also create a need for massive amounts of propellant to climb back out into the solar system, whether you used nuclear propulsion or not.<br /><br />I'd doubt a manned spacecraft will ever travel much inside the orbit of Venus, even in the far future. Mercury and Venus would be best left to advanced unmanned probes, and in the case of Mercury, very tough rovers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[halman]

mattblack,<br /><br />Mercury is likely to become one of the most important planets in the development of the Solar System, in spite of the difficulty in reaching it. There is strong evidence that Mercury is made up almost entirely of heavy metals, which are going to be in demand for industrial purposes, just as they are today. By landing near the terminator shortly after sunset, it would be possible to get dug in before the following sunrise. Exporting materials means thowing them off the planet with a solar sail and a transponder.<br /><br />Everyone looks at space flight as a bold adventure, filled with romantic mystery, as colonies are started on other worlds. If that is all that it turns out to be, then space flight may be very rare. It is going to be very expensive to travel around the Solar System for a long time, and the voyages are not going to be short, even if new ion or plasma drives are developed. Unless space produces a sizeable return on the investment, at some point, the investment is likely to stop.<br /><br />The exploitation of space is far more important than the exploration of space, at least at this time, because the only way to guarantee that we will continue to have access to space is to start making money out there. If big business does not move into space, then there will be little incentive to develop new launch systems, build space stations, and perfect advanced high-energy drives. As much as we would all like to see colonies on other worlds, money for such endeavours is still not evident. If big business decides to spend money on space exploration the way that it has on oil exploration, access to space will get cheap enough that sending a colonizing team to Mars will be possible without government funding. (Yes, I know that there are private enterprises dedicated to colonizing Mars, but I have not seen any hardware flying yet.)<br /><br />Mercury is similiar to the North Slope in terms that it is a hostile environment, very remote, a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[mattblack]

I CAN actually envision manned expeditions there, someday, but only when there are advanced nuclear gas core rocket engines or even fusion propulsion of some kind: You'd need LOTS of delta-V to shift the tonnages of raw ores and heavy metals. Or, mass-driver complexes could be set up on the surface with the refinery complexes underground, manned or otherwise.<br /><br />Perhaps the factories & refineries could be man-tended and largely automated with their maintenance crews regularly rotated from a base in Venusian orbit. This base would, of course, be heavily armored against radiation and have artificial gravity as a feature.<br /><br />Science fiction stuff for now, sure. But once an Asteroid-mining infrastructure is in place, it could be possible. Not to mention all that lovely Helium 3 that Mercury's regolith must be lousy with!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[halman]

mattblack,<br /><br />Hom much delta v would a Saturn 5 generate if launched from lunar orbit? We have spent so much time dealing with ground based launching that we easily forget the possibilities created by assembling large vehicles in orbit. Our current launch environment is one of hand crafted rockets and the Space Shuttle, which makes us believe that putting mass in orbit has to be expensive. By building rockets on assembly lines in batches, and using interchangable upper stages, we can bring launch costs down considerably. This is why creating demand for launch capacity is so vital right now, which is why I advocate returning to the Moon to stay.<br /><br />Mercury is deep in a powerful gravity well, true, but that gravity well is generated by a star which creates a powerful force rising out of the well, the solar wind. Using solar sails, mass can be exported from Mercury with a magnetic launcher, feeding a pipeline which might have a transit time of 10 years. As long as the material keeps coming out of the pipe, it doesn't matter how long it took to get there.<br /><br />Everything on Mercury will have to be dug in, even the magnetic launcher. The power of the Sun at that close distance will destroy practicially anything over time. Which may be why Mercury is so dense, all of the lighter soils have been burned off, leaving the heavier metals. All living quarters will be several kilometers underground, where radation and heat will be easy to sheild against. Maintaining physical fitness might be as easy as having the sleeping quarters inside centerfuges, so that the sleep periods are spent at 1 g.<br /><br />Everything we do in space is going to require innovation, practice, and alteration, as we learn what conditions are like over long periods of time. But the lure of profit has driven people to great heights, as well as to incredible lows. Sailing around the Horn to California was once a life threatening journey. But it was done over and over again, as p <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[3488]

Good point halman. <br /><br />I did wonder that myself as to why Mercury has such a huge iron core, in relation to Mercury's size. If it is due to sillicates being burned off as you suggest by intense sunlight, I would have though that this process would be detectable (extremely thin atmosphere). If true, than in a sense, Mercury is like a giant silicate comet!!<br /><br />Generally it is thought that much of Mercury's mantle & original crust were removed during gigantic impacts!!<br /><br />It was a wrench that the ESA had cancelled the Mercury Lander from Bepi Colombo (due to land near one of the poles of Mercury).<br /><br />I would hope that Japan or maybe JPL pick up that initiative & revive it in some form. A Mercury rover certainly would be of interest.<br /><br />As for humans, I think certainly not yet. We have enough trouble to launch a Space Shuttle on schedule to the low orbiting ISS, so something as tricky as a manned craft to Mars or Mercury, I think at the current time is a non starter, not to mention heavy duty sunshades, special suits, etc.<br /><br />MESSENGER & Bepi Colombo will certainly improve matters regarding the innermost planet. It will be something to see the entire planet in high resolution!!!<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[llivinglarge]

Doing a manned mission to Mercury or Venus would be nothing short of suicide... Let's get to men to Mars first before we talk about suicide missions.

 

[rocketman5000]

An interesting thought I came up with while surfing the net was the creation of antimater as a resource on mars. Currently the stuff is really expensive. The article I read stated that antimater is created in space by the collision of mater with cosmic rays. With Mecury's close proximity to the sun would it be possible to use the sun to create antimater rather than particle accelerators? If it wasn't possible would you be able to reduce the neccessary energy imput by the particle accellerators by heating the hydrogen in the intense sunlight?