Mars: An incremental mission without a landing?

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

venator_3000

Guest
I've been reading posts and enjoying the dialogue. There seems to be much enthusiasm for a mission to mars or return to the Moon. But I don't think NASA can do this. I don't see a good deal of confidence garnered from shuttle or ISS. Perhaps with these large projects NASA is going back to the well too many times. What's the ISS budget and is it over-budget? Shuttle? This type of performance must be a big impediment whenever they deal with Congress (which is continuously).<br /><br />The two systems above were actually just portions of what was to be a large space infrastructure. That was Von Braun's (as well as many others) vision that was at one point presented to the powers that be. The vision included Moon bases and manned missions to Mars. Rather than this vision NASA was allowed shuttle and its biggest selling point seemed to be the fact that for some reason a throwaway society required a recyclable spaceship. <br /><br />That being said I think the issue is one of access. Access to orbit (which we have at great cost for varying payloads) and access to the planets (which we have if you are a robot). It might be better for NASA to step away from manned planetary landers and develop something that would allow 1-4 people the ability to visit Mars, Venus, Luna or the Asteroids. This cruiser would be a contained ship that would follow some optimal energy path (optimal being what's best for time, consumables, and crew) to Mars. Once there it would "dock" with Phobos or Deimos. No landing would be attempted. This might not be satisfying to the diehards but it would do three things:<br /><br />1. Develop the actual ability to go someplace,<br />2. Provide a close-up, human-eyed view of another world,<br />3. Be a building block for other missions. <br /><br />I think the ability to get there in one ship is crucial before the other goal (boots and flags) can be accomplished. It also lets NASA focus on developing 1 vehicle rather than 3 (cruiser, descent ship, and ascent vehicle). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
This kind of approach is being considered for Mars Sample Return mission on the unmanned side of exploration...
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Precursor crewed missions are proposed from time to time. They include flyby, orbiter, Phobos and Deimos missions.<br /><br />They have the advantage of building confidence and valiating technology and the human system. They also require little new technology or even hardware. The only new hardware would be the earth departure stages.<br /><br />They have the disadvantage of major exposure to microgravity and radiation for relatively little scientfic return.<br /><br />At present Soyuz supposedly can only spend six months or so in space, it would have to be modified for the 600-800 day missions required. Flyby missions have very high earth entry velocities too, possibly too high for Soyuz.<br /><br />Shenzhou might be another option, it has the same shape as Soyuz but is larger. How long it can spend in space is an open question.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They have the disadvantage of major exposure to microgravity and radiation for relatively little scientfic return. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hi Jon,<br />But do you think this is likely to remain the case? Microgravity is solvable with exercise and perhaps a centrifuge. Radiation risks would be lower buried on phobos than on the surface of mars. Teleoperation is progressing by leaps and bounds and will continue to do so regardless of space budgets. They are even talking about surgery by teleoperation.<br /><br />Currently teleoperation is just seen as a way to increase safety and reduce cost but doesnt it seem likely that it will actually become a superiour experience to working within a space suit? A spacesuited hand will always be more clumsy than a human hand. With teleoperation you could have high resolution senses of texture you could also calibrate to tell you additional information eg you could 'feel' the iron content of a rock in your hand as a tingle. You could break off a small fragment and hand it over to minature arms that can manipulate a grain of sand all from the same environment. Then at the push of a button you could 'teleport' your attention to a site a thousand miles away. Or disconnect for a break and instantly be in your phobos base with your crewmates.<br /><br />It is true we dont have these technologies yet, but nor do we have the craft to get us there. The difference is that these craft need huge political will to develop whereas technologies such as teleoperation would be hard to arrest if we wanted to.<br /><br />What finally pulls us to mars is likely to be the lag IMO. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
V

venator_3000

Guest
Thank you for your reply. <br /><br />If we are to become a spacefaring race then isn't exposure to the space environment the challenge? Whether we go to Mars or elsewhere without landing we have this risk and must build a space-cruiser to protect the crew against this. I agree this is a huge challenge but IM(lowly) opinion it is do-able, and studies and books I have read as a layman suggest the need for "storm shelters" etc. <br /><br />I appreciate your point about the risk vs. scientific return. It is one of the leading arguments about the utilization of robotics. I think robots are fabulous and the many planetary missions PLUS web access really do make you feel like a participant. But if we are sending people to Mars I must confess that the talk about "The Science" strikes me as a thin veneer that is painted over the real mission: human spaceflight/exploration (of our potential)/adventure. <br /><br />I would like to see the space program develop the ability to go places. At the very least to succesfully use what we have, with short development or extrapolation of current tools, to at least get us to the asteroids or the orbits of the inner planets. Perhaps then the momentum and money will come to get people back and forth to the surfaces of mars and Luna. I was very surprised to see in another post a discussion by aerospace experts about the posssibility of going to Lagrange points or the asteroids in lieu of the Moon. This is exciting. <br /><br />Regarding my suggestion of the Soyuz it was more as a ferry up to the ship and a ferry back down. The cruiser itself would not be jettisoned but would need to go from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back to Earth orbit.<br /><br />I think Buzz Aldrin or Mike Collins proposed a Mars orbit cycler that had a window where ferries from Earth could dock with it. Something like this might come into play for a Phobos-Deimos mission. I suppose a technical challenge for this type of cruiser would be the transfer of consumables and cryogen <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
We covered a lot of this ground in Phobos First on SB&T. Marshall Savage and Gerard O'Neill are good writers to start with the fundamentals of living in free-space, even if you disagree with their exact plan. Water is the best shielding, plus is 70% of our bodyweight, we have to learn to extract H20 somewhere in space to make anything else habitable happen. Both Savage and Bigelow Aerospace plan on water blankets for shielding, eventually living underwater in space.<br /><br />Mars orbit, specifically Stickney Crater on Phobos (but follow the water), offers a unique vantage point for real-time Mars operations and is about as easy to get to as Luna (plus free aerobraking in both directions). Put centrifuges and habs under ice/slag-domes in Stickney, create a destination that others will pay to visit or pay to operate their remote Mars gear. There isn't a need right now to go to the surface, so why not stay at the top of that gravity well? <br /><br />Go to the surface when we are confident of getting there and back, and have already built starter bases using tele-robotics.<br /><br />Generally I favor a private venture doing the "industrial park" aspect with NASA, ESA, National Geographic and the like sending client-astronauts. The operator provides habitable space, power and heat extraction and builds it's competence in extracting water somewhere cis-Mars. If another organization (NASA & RKS, AF, Navy, JAXA, etc) wanted to build the Phobos base or a nuclear tug, please go right ahead. If I had $1G, I'd be doing it right now because there is extant and upcoming hardware to do it.<br /><br />Another compelling aspect to Phobos is that we can study Mars close-up without as many planetary-protection issues. If Mars has life, we need to know how dangerous it is before sending people down. Contamination i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
V

venator_3000

Guest
JO5H<br /><br />Thanx for the link. I will read thru that. <br /><br />Also, I hadn't considered a mars life issue before. Important to take note of that if it should exist.<br /><br />v3k <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

docm

Guest
Said it before & I'll say it again; going to Mars space without doing a landing <i>on Mars</i> is a bit too much like tantric sex for my taste <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
At least it would be zero-g tantric sex <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />btw what actually is the word on the probability of ice on phobos?<br /><br />Ceres is another world that interests me a lot because of it's ice and easy landing. It will be very interesting to see what that probe (?DAWN?) finds.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
"eventually living underwater in space."<br /><br />Do you mean submerged into and breathing oxygenated liquid? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Hi Kelvin<br /><br /><i>Microgravity is solvable with exercise and perhaps a centrifuge.</i><br /><br />I am a firm advocate that microgravity is a managable factor for trips to mars. However, it is still a risk. Especially as non-landing missions will be spent entirely in it, up to 900 days in the first case, for scientific returns that can be quite small - a few hours in the case of a non-landing flyby mission. The technical value from ystem and spacecraft validation is more difficult for me the judge.<br /><br /><i>Radiation risks would be lower buried on phobos than on the surface of mars.</i><br /><br />This depends on what you do. A flyby mission is essentially all in deep space, so twice what you would get on the surface of the Moon for the same period, a bit over twice what is experienced in Earth orbit. In Mars orbit you are exposed to something like what you could on the Moon, maybe a bit less. On Phbos itself it would be roughly similar to earth orbit, the same as you would be on Mars.<br /><br />You could bury your Mars station as well as the one on Phobos. With gravity to help it might be a lot easier on Mars as well. <br /><br /><i> Teleoperation is progressing by leaps and bounds and will continue to do so regardless of space budgets. They are even talking about surgery by teleoperation.</i><br /><br />Teleoperating of rovers, drill rigs and even laboratories on the surface of Mars has a lot of potential. A teleoperation station, parked on the Mars side of Phobos could be a very effective.<br /><br /><i>Currently teleoperation is just seen as a way to increase safety and reduce cost but doesnt it seem likely that it will actually become a superiour experience to working within a space suit? A spacesuited hand will always be more clumsy than a human hand. With teleoperation you could have high resolution senses of texture you could also calibrate to tell you additional information eg you could 'feel' the iron content of a rock in your hand as a tingle. You cou</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<i>If we are to become a spacefaring race then isn't exposure to the space environment the challenge? Whether we go to Mars or elsewhere without landing we have this risk and must build a space-cruiser to protect the crew against this. I agree this is a huge challenge but IM(lowly) opinion it is do-able, and studies and books I have read as a layman suggest the need for "storm shelters" etc. </i><br /><br />The risks are manageable, but they have to be worth taking, hence the risk/return ratio. The returns for a fly mission are very small at least scientifically, compared to a mars orbit mission, while a surface mission, especially a long stay one has the highest return of all. of course a surface mission has the highest cost, because you need to develop the landers and all the surface hardware.<br /><br /><i>I appreciate your point about the risk vs. scientific return. It is one of the leading arguments about the utilization of robotics. I think robots are fabulous and the many planetary missions PLUS web access really do make you feel like a participant. But if we are sending people to Mars I must confess that the talk about "The Science" strikes me as a thin veneer that is painted over the real mission: human spaceflight/exploration (of our potential)/adventure. </i><br /><br />This is a good point, Mike Griffin's real vs acceptable reasons. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23189 But as a planetary scientisst I don't find science a thing veneer for going. Science is simply a systemitised way of exploring and understanding the world, and the best way to explore and understand Mars is with people on the surface (barring some presently unknown but compelling reason not to send people). IMHO of course!<br /><br /><i>I would like to see the space program develop the ability to go places. At the very least to succesfully use what we have, with short development or extrapolation of cu</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
H

holmec

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>1. Develop the actual ability to go someplace,<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMHO this is where the major problem lies.<br /><br />NASA's Constellation is geared to travel to moon, Mars, asteroids etc. It has its own propulsion but required extra module for landing on other planetary bodies.<br /><br />The fact is that you need a specialized craft for every segment of your trip. <br /><br />1. Launcher from Earth<br />2. interplanetary transportation/propulsion<br />3. Lander for your target planet<br />4. Launcher from your target planet<br />5. interplanetary transportation/propulsion back to Earth<br />6. a lander for Earth.<br /><br />That's six functions. NASA takes function 5 and 6 and puts them into Orion capsule/service module combo. Everything else has its own vehicle.<br /><br />If a private company made a permanent refuelable tug to take care of functions 2 and 5, it may make a market for itself to several customers.<br /><br />In NASA function 2 is covered by the trans-target injector booster and then discarded. For the moon NASA covers functions 3 and 4 with the Lunar Lander. I think for Mars they may need two vehicles somehow.<br /><br />New Space companies like SpaceX and T-Space, etc, have been tackling function 1 and 6 only. A refuelable tug could take care of 2 and 5, then some solution would have to be thought of for 3 and 4.<br /><br />So space travel to other planets/bodies is complicated and perhaps if the problem is divided up then maybe private companies will find a way to get us and our cargo to space and other planets. I think that would be the nature of the infrastructure. You treat the trip as a multi leg journey then the whole thing seems doable. <br /><br />One thing is for sure. An interplanetary ship would have to take the Earth landers with it since its more feasable to reenter the Earth's atmosphere without entering in an Earth's orbit than trying to stop the craft with rocket power. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts