Orion Capsule - 2 months to Mars?

[controltestguy]

Why bother going to Mars at all if it's going to take years? The concentration should be on the moon for now to get the experience. In parallel to that should be the development of propulsion systems that can get you out to Jupiter in a reasonable time. I'm not talking warp drive here, but why spend billions on a transportation system just to get to Mars. We (I) would want to travel all over the inner solar system. If we go to Mars once on a strained budget, we'll never go back. I give you Apollo as an example. But if we can get there relatively quick, then the cost goes down and private enterprise will pick up some of the tab and 'off we go'.

We can't decide that every 50 years we'll go somewhere 'off earth'. If we do that we might as well stay in LEO and wait for another civilization to happen by. (Vulcans, maybe). Instead of committing to just a Mars Mission, we should be committing to a Mars Mission that only takes a couple of months or less. That's exciting to me. I'd rather wait an extra 10-15 years for the propulsion technology to catch up before I launch a MM.

Anyway, MHO.

Regards,

CTG

 

[mark_d_s]

As a European, I know what I propose isn't going to garner much support from the majority here (Americans).

But the only way to send people beyond LEO is via international cooperation. Going to Mars right now isn't feasable - at least in the financial sense. IF the European/American/Japanese/Russian/Chinese/South Korean/Indian space agencies had a common goal, then a Mars Mission would be on the cards (after a moon base/long term habitat).

By pooling the funds, any nation would be looking at a maximum of 25% of the cost of going it alone. That alone makes it doable. Also, as a European, I'm a little embarrassed at the total lack of commitment to manned spaceflight that ESA has demonstrated - robotics are great to a degree, but will NEVER replace human exploration. At the end of the day, as much as I love Spirit & Opportunity, the amount that's been spent on them so far would have been far better spent getting just ONE man on mars for a week. Intelligent evaluation of a situation in real time can not be underestimated. In fact you could argue that we should never have sent any probes to Mars - just save the money until we can send people. We'd be quids in by now.

As an aside, just to slag of the European mentality again, the way it works over here is that all EU nations donate to the science budget, without caring how it's allocated. As such, many Euro MPs just look at the CERN budget (LHC) and think they've done a good job*. This is crap. I, personally, would happily pay an extra penny per pound in tax if that money was going to manned spaceflight. Bearing in mind that Europe, as a whole, is the most important market in the world, this should be easy to achieve. And yet our so called leaders disagree. Advancement of the Human Race is pretty low on the priority list. I don't know about you, but this saddens me.

*I'm not knocking CERN - what they may do could be the most important endeavour in science of all time. In fact, I'm certain it will be.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

As a European, I know what I propose isn't going to garner much support from the majority here (Americans).

But the only way to send people beyond LEO is via international cooperation. Going to Mars right now isn't feasable - at least in the financial sense. IF the European/American/Japanese/Russian/Chinese/South Korean/Indian space agencies had a common goal, then a Mars Mission would be on the cards (after a moon base/long term habitat).

By pooling the funds, any nation would be looking at a maximum of 25% of the cost of going it alone. That alone makes it doable. Also, as a European, I'm a little embarrassed at the total lack of commitment to manned spaceflight that ESA has demonstrated - robotics are great to a degree, but will NEVER replace human exploration. At the end of the day, as much as I love Spirit & Opportunity, the amount that's been spent on them so far would have been far better spent getting just ONE man on mars for a week. Intelligent evaluation of a situation in real time can not be underestimated. In fact you could argue that we should never have sent any probes to Mars - just save the money until we can send people. We'd be quids in by now.

As an aside, just to slag of the European mentality again, the way it works over here is that all EU nations donate to the science budget, without caring how it's allocated. As such, many Euro MPs just look at the CERN budget (LHC) and think they've done a good job*. This is crap. I, personally, would happily pay an extra penny per pound in tax if that money was going to manned spaceflight. Bearing in mind that Europe, as a whole, is the most important market in the world, this should be easy to achieve. And yet our so called leaders disagree. Advancement of the Human Race is pretty low on the priority list. I don't know about you, but this saddens me.

*I'm not knocking CERN - what they may do could be the most important endeavour in science of all time. In fact, I'm certain it will be.

As a European, I know what I propose isn't going to garner much support from the majority here (Americans).

I'm not sure what your being a European has to do with a particular argument. In fact, I find myself in disagreement with a myriad of space.com users who are American. With that said, your proposal hasn't garnered much support from me

I constantly here people saying that going to Mars right now isn't feasible--either technologically or financially--but I am not sure why this assertion is made. If going to Mars is not an ideal or a worthy goal, arguments can be made for this, but technology and financial ability need not be called in to assist. When people say that Mars is not "doable" right now due to technology or money issues, what they really are saying is that a Mars trip is not doable because the pet technologies they desire to be in place for such a mission are not yet in place and, partly due to the fact, any such mission's costs quickly spirals out of control. That is to say, any Mars mission is not feasible--in the financial sense--based on an architecture that is super expsensive. For example, if we were to propose the recommendations of the 90 Day report, yes--$450 billion dollar plans are quite out of the question. Of course, $55 billion over a 10 year period is not. The irony is that, according to the Augustine Panel, no destinations look "feasable - at least in the financial sense." With that said, I'm for international cooperation--based on unified goals and the unity which can be accomplished through scientific exploration--not because it is the only way to accomplish a given mission.

As for your comments regarding robotics, etc.--I'm mostly in agreement with you. I do think robotic exploration has its place and is a vital component to NASA's goals, but it is not the end all, be all.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

Why bother going to Mars at all if it's going to take years? The concentration should be on the moon for now to get the experience. In parallel to that should be the development of propulsion systems that can get you out to Jupiter in a reasonable time. I'm not talking warp drive here, but why spend billions on a transportation system just to get to Mars. We (I) would want to travel all over the inner solar system. If we go to Mars once on a strained budget, we'll never go back. I give you Apollo as an example. But if we can get there relatively quick, then the cost goes down and private enterprise will pick up some of the tab and 'off we go'.

We can't decide that every 50 years we'll go somewhere 'off earth'. If we do that we might as well stay in LEO and wait for another civilization to happen by. (Vulcans, maybe). Instead of committing to just a Mars Mission, we should be committing to a Mars Mission that only takes a couple of months or less. That's exciting to me. I'd rather wait an extra 10-15 years for the propulsion technology to catch up before I launch a MM.

Anyway, MHO.

Regards,

CTG

"Why bother going to Mars at all if it's going to take years?"

Because Mars is a big prize and holds the potential for numerous scientific rewards. I'm glad our European predecessors did not have the same attitude toward the New Word. Besides, if we're going to Mars, it'd better take longer than a few days--besides, why bother going at all? If part of your mission objectives is to get back to earth as quickly as possible there's a cheaper way to accomplish that--stay on earth. If we go to Mars, it should be to stay--not for a week and not even for 30 days. Let's do sorties to the moon, not to Mars.

"The concentration should be on the moon for now to get the experience."

The concentration certainly is on the moon for now. That hasn't changed and short of a miracle and complete change in short-sighted thinking, it won't change.

"In parallel to that should be the development of propulsion systems that can get you out to Jupiter in a reasonable time. I'm not talking warp drive here, but why spend billions on a transportation system just to get to Mars."

At this point, you might as well be talking warp drives. Development of propulsion systems to get us to Jupiter in a reasonable time? The Augustine Panel just said we can't even get to the moon with current propulsion due to lack of funding and NASA's inability to put something together in 16 years which originally took only 8 the first time. And Jupiter? I'm extremely interested in Jupiter and its moons as well as Saturn's...but skip Mars and go straight to Jupiter. I might be jumping the gun and just misunderstanding you. Mars, by the way, would be a great staging area for missions to the outer solar system. The gravity is lower for launches and the fuel can be produced locally. Done correctly, Mars will be a springboard into the outer solar system and beyond. These goals can be accomplished in parallel to the tremendous amount of scientific exploration and investigation that can be done on Mars itself.

"We (I) would want to travel all over the inner solar system. If we go to Mars once on a strained budget, we'll never go back. I give you Apollo as an example."

That's partially true. It might be more accurate to say, however, that if we go to Mars via an expensive mission architecture that attempts to include everyone's pet technologies, we'll 1) never get there in less than 50 years--maybe, and 2) we'll only go once and then be revisiting a possible return 50 years after that. That's why better, more efficient architectures should be considered. Of course, the Augustine Panel did not such considering.

"But if we can get there relatively quick, then the cost goes down and private enterprise will pick up some of the tab and 'off we go'."

"Quick" is a relative term. There are number of factors that, for me, weigh in here, one of which is the destination. 6 months to Mars is relatively quick for me. I'd take it. I'd bet with the amount of science that could be accomplished, a year and half stay on the surface would go by relatively quick as well. Of course, to get there "relatively quick" (as in a few days or weeks, or a couple months), we need some significant advances and/or funding increases in technology development. We'll get there. Someday. No forms of new propulsion were considered as options by the Augustine Panel, so until the next panel is put together we'll be waiting.

Of course, if we were to go to Mars now and establish a foothold instead of a boot print, an ever present need would exist--in the here and now--for better propulsion methods. That would provide incentive to create better propulsion technologies now rather than at some far off point in the future and then, perhaps, "cost goes down and private enterprise will pick up some of the tab and 'off we go'", as you noted. So long as better propulsion technologies are a want due to hopeful aspirations for future space flight, little incentive exists to accelerate those developments. Having people 300 millions miles away, however, might be just what is needed to spur innovation and the pioneering spirit that is not only quintessentially American, but inherently human as well.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

The need to get there in 2 months is a solution to the need to go to Mars. The engine sounds complicated but if they are successful which we all hope, they will try it first in a series of unmanned missions. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to send a wagon trail of robots there to conduct science while testing out the engine design.

Another way to go to Mars is to go in a covered wagon like people did back in the pioneer days. Simply use existing chemical rockets and space modules that have 50 years of proven reliability and solve the two problems of long duration space travel:

1) Radiation and
2) Bone loss.

No one has done any space experiements to solve these two problems even though they are staring us right in the face. They only study the problem and measure how bad these things are on humans. Time to step up to the plate and solve these two problems.

What if space radiation causes bone loss?

What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?

If it turns out that simple, we would have wasted a lot of time and money trying to get there in 2 months.

Most people, however, are only interested in one thing, i.e., finding a way to make a lot of money sending people to Mars.

"Solve" is a strong word. NASA has attemtped to "solve" these problems insofar as they attempt to "mitigate" them. These mitigation techniques are accomplished through dietary supplements, pharmacological methods, and exercise.

Radiation, of course, can't be completely stopped, but it can be reduced. A habitat en route to Mars would provide minimal shielding through its hulls, food, water and other supplies. A "storm shelter" could be placed in the center for emergencies, such as if a solar flare were to occur. Not much can be done, however, for cosmic radiation, since we're talking billions of volts and would necessitate meters of sheilding, which would just not be possible due to mass constraints (which ultimately boils down to budgetary constraints).

"What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?"

Good question. But what if instead of 5 minutes a day, we did 24 hours a day, using a longer radius and slower rpm--the slower the more bearable and effects produced by the centrifugal and coriolis forces can be minimized or made unnoticable (preferably 2 rpm). A mission to Mars employing such a setup could generate about 1/3 earth's gravity, and if the the astronauts utilized other mitigation techniques already used by their ISS counterparts they would be at a great advantage.

Of course, it's hard to study this kind of stuff when funding keeps getting cut and "priorities" keep changing. The Mars Gravity Biosatellite, which was supposed to be launched sometime in 2010 or 2011 to employ an artificial gravity experiment on mammals using the centrifugal force. It was cancelled this past June.

 

[Basketvector]

I dont think the ISS can be used as a port of call for a mars ship or for moon missions because its orbit is too inclined. They made the ISS go to high latitudes so that the russians can reach it more easily, but that makes it useless. aint that true?

 

[JonClarke]

I dont think the ISS can be used as a port of call for a mars ship or for moon missions because its orbit is too inclined. They made the ISS go to high latitudes so that the russians can reach it more easily, but that makes it useless. aint that true?

1) You don't need a LEO port of call for Mars missions.

2) if you wanted one, the ISS's orbit can be be used.

 

[JonClarke]

"What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?"

Good question. But what if instead of 5 minutes a day, we did 24 hours a day, using a longer radius and slower rpm--the slower the more bearable and effects produced by the centrifugal and coriolis forces can be minimized or made unnoticable (preferably 2 rpm). A mission to Mars employing such a setup could generate about 1/3 earth's gravity, and if the the astronauts utilized other mitigation techniques already used by their ISS counterparts they would be at a great advantage.

However spin gravity for an entire spacecraft involves an considerable number of engineering challenges and physiological unknowns, it also requires much more mass. Short arm centrifuges are lighter and less challenging.

Also give our experience to date there is no obvious need for such extreme meausres as spinning the entire spacecraft.

 

[EarthlingX]

I suggested this as a comment to a space.com article (http://www.space.com/news/090820-nasa-c ... ships.html), at the end of comments, but i hope it will not be considered spam, if i do it again here :

If NASA with partners builds interplanetary ship, how much would such a ship cost as a product, who could afford it, who could buy it ?
Could ESA buy such a ship ? JAXA ? Roscosmos ? ISRO ? .. ?
If i bring home some rock from a Ceres, can i sell it ?
Maybe solution is hidden in this answers ...

I really think, that instead of talking about one shot to Mars, we should be discussing interplanetary ship.
And technical problems are not really so bad, as we can see. It's more about who owns what and who gets what for doing something that he/she should be doing in the first place.

 

[JonClarke]

The need to get there in 2 months is a solution to the need to go to Mars. The engine sounds complicated but if they are successful which we all hope, they will try it first in a series of unmanned missions. Sounds like a perfect opportunity to send a wagon trail of robots there to conduct science while testing out the engine design.

The technology to go to Mars in two months does not exist, it is unlikely to exist for a long time to come. It is also not neccessary.

1) Radiation and
2) Bone loss.

No one has done any space experiements to solve these two problems even though they are staring us right in the face. They only study the problem and measure how bad these things are on humans. Time to step up to the plate and solve these two problems.

Noone has done any experiments to solve these problems? Radiation and micreogravity countermeasures have been researched from the earliest days of manned spaceflight. We have good ideas on the shielding requirements and the countermeasures needed. Of coursde, there is always room for more research.

What if space radiation causes bone loss?

There is no evidence it does.

What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?

If it turns out that simple, we would have wasted a lot of time and money trying to get there in 2 months.

We already know how to keep bone loss to manageable levels on a trip to mars. It is why people can fly multiple long duration missions to space stations.

Most people, however, are only interested in one thing, i.e., finding a way to make a lot of money sending people to Mars.

I haven't seen much evidence of this.

Jon

 

[NoDozRequiem]

"What if 5 minutes of short radius intermittent artificial gravity per day stops bone loss?"

Good question. But what if instead of 5 minutes a day, we did 24 hours a day, using a longer radius and slower rpm--the slower the more bearable and effects produced by the centrifugal and coriolis forces can be minimized or made unnoticable (preferably 2 rpm). A mission to Mars employing such a setup could generate about 1/3 earth's gravity, and if the the astronauts utilized other mitigation techniques already used by their ISS counterparts they would be at a great advantage.

However spin gravity for an entire spacecraft involves an considerable number of engineering challenges and physiological unknowns, it also requires much more mass. Short arm centrifuges are lighter and less challenging.

Also give our experience to date there is no obvious need for such extreme meausres as spinning the entire spacecraft.

Short arm centrifuges are lighter and less challenging, but require higher RPMs, which increases physiological problems. If your astronauts can't walk around the space craft due to diziness, that's a problem. There are engineering problems, but the number and difficulty vary depending on what kind of rotating system you employ. Likewise, mass requirements vary as well depending on the design. The spaceship on 2001 would require a lot of mass (and the space craft on 2010 doesn't even make sense. But Mars Direct's utilization would only require the additional mass of the tether. The burnt out upper stage and habitat, of course, are the only other components and---well, they're along for the ride.

I can't say I agree completely that our experience to date presents no obvious need for such measures as producing artificial gravity for astronauts on long duration missions. I can say that I think many critics of long duration human space flight, and specifically, critics of Mars first (or Mars at all) human missions overstate this problem (i.e. weightlessness). I think we could go to Mars, stay, and come back and, given some recovery time, the astronauts would be fine without employing artificial gravity techniques. However, if we can provide such an environment, I think it only does a disservice not to. Bone loss, muscle atrophy, cardiovascular changes, depressed immune functions, are all negative things which, if can be avoided, probably should. Just because I would heal in a few days or weeks, I'm not going to go lay my hand on a hot plate.

And while utilizing centrifugal forces to produce artificial gravity environments involve considerable physiological unknowns, do you assert there are no physiological unknowns for prolonged microgravity and/or "zero" gravity exposure? I doubt you are, but I just want to make sure I understand where you are coming from--and certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

 

[bushuser]

"I propose we strap larger vasimir rockets to ISS after it gets decommissioned and send it to Mars. It's biggest artifact in space and we've already invested energy in boosting it into orbit. Add to it and off we go. Take a test run to Moon first. Only difference between space station and space ship is a propulsion system."

Keith Pretzer[/quote]

I know that idea of sending the ISS somewhere on a journey has been shot down here many times. But I have to ask...what amount of acceleration/G force does the station absorb whenever it is boosted by a Progress rocket?

It is reasonable to consider using partsof the ISS for other purposes.

 

[EarthlingX]

I know that idea of sending the ISS somewhere on a journey has been shot down here many times. But I have to ask...what amount of acceleration/G force does the station absorb whenever it is boosted by a Progress rocket?

It is reasonable to consider using partsof the ISS for other purposes.

What about using knowledge we got from building ISS and apply it to a modular ship with better structural integrity ? We are talking 20 years (really, really hope not), but then we can go everywhere ... :mrgreen:

 

[TC_sc]

If we go to Mars using the 2 year chemical rocket timeline, the risks are much greater. The longer the mission the better chance we lose at least one crew member or loss of them all. Look at past missions where we have lost lives, it put the space program on hold and even had some calling for the end of the manned space program. Can we risk that by rushing to Mars with such long duration voyages? Time spent in the spacecraft is not doing science on Mars.

A 2-3 year mission to Mars makes it most probably a onetime mission since all the hardware used to get there and back is not reusable. Whatever the cost of the mission, its only going to be more for each successive mission. It's time we end the throw away mentality if we really want to explore our solar system.

 

[andrew_t1000]

I am having a major problem with Orion! Its not very big, and considering an Astronaut going to Mars will be in there for months, it is a major design floor, and bad for the astronauts health and fitness. Its fine for the Moon as its just a few days away, but months in a small cramped box is to much to ask anyone to do, or are NASA seriously going to do it?

p.s sorry if this has been previously discussed.

I know what you mean, Orion seems like a joke!
Sorry, but the whole thing seems like a bigger Apollo!
I just don't understand why we can't keep the shuttles going.
Quantas and other airlines keep 747's going for years!
We have to get past the whole USA-centric approach to going to Mars.
How about a Salyut spacecraft?
Surely that would be possible?
But an Orion? Really? I'd go in a flash, but in an Orion capsule?
After 20 years I would have though the technology would have gotten better.
Face facts, it has. Every year computers get better, materials technology gets better.
What the hell are NASA doing?
I remember the whole ISS argument, 11 billion dollars in mock-ups and feasibility studies, before anything was ever flown.
And then it ended up being a Russian space station anyway.
Ok, maybe I'm a little bitter, having grown up watching Apollo, but by now I would have thought we would be using shuttles to build BIG ships that had the capability to go to Mars and back a few dozen times.
Instead we let Bush, Blair and Howard get us into a war that has crashed the global economy.
I just hope to hell we never have to stop a comet or asteroid from hitting Earth.

 

[andrew_t1000]

I know this is just going to sound whack, but here goes...
Forget the whole NASA thing.
When are we going to realise we are all citizens of planet Earth?
What we really need is an International Space Agency.
Take US and Russian expertise, add Australian "Just do it", some British steadfastness, a shipload of Japanese ingenuity and there you have it.
I'm not talking about building a USS Enterprise, but surely we are able to do a little better than Orion!
It just seems like a giant leap backwards.
We need to stop the whole ethnocentric, "My country is better than yours" crap and WORK TOGETHER!
Otherwise I can see the USA getting to Mars once or twice, bringing back a few hundred kilos of rocks and then nothing happening for 20 years.
20 odd years after Apollo I would have thought we were capable as a species to be able to work together to build 1 or 2 ships that could last a few DECADES!
We can build airliners and warships that last that long, a spaceship, a REAL spaceship is not going to have the stress that an airliner has on it or the chemical attack that a warship is exposed to.
Ok, maybe it would take a few shuttle and Proton launches, but the investment in our combined future would be worth it.
The dinky little spacecraft that we see trotted out seem so damn lame.
I can't be the only one of my generation, that grew up with watching Apollo, Skylab, Viking, Voyager, that feels like we have been let down in the most heinous way.
Grrrr!

 

[EarthlingX]

Hear, hear
Could at least we, space enthusiasts from the Earth, unite on one mission to everywhere ?

 

[freya]

Count me in, I'm an Aussie, and I would be proud to know that my tax dollar is contributing to a truly international effort to continue mankinds onward and forever upward. It's the only way we are going to truly establish ourselves amongst the stars.

 

[TC_sc]

Orion is an Earth reentry vehicle. It's not a Mars spacecraft. NASA is currently building it just so we have a way to ISS once the shuttle is retired, and possibly to the moon.

No one at this point has suggested that the Mars mission won't be international. A Mars mission is yet only a dream in some designer's computer. Lets spend the time pushing all nations to use the best technology for the Mars mission. There are designers all over the world working on this problem, it's not just an American problem.

 

[NoDozRequiem]

If we go to Mars using the 2 year chemical rocket timeline, the risks are much greater. The longer the mission the better chance we lose at least one crew member or loss of them all. Look at past missions where we have lost lives, it put the space program on hold and even had some calling for the end of the manned space program. Can we risk that by rushing to Mars with such long duration voyages? Time spent in the spacecraft is not doing science on Mars.

A 2-3 year mission to Mars makes it most probably a onetime mission since all the hardware used to get there and back is not reusable. Whatever the cost of the mission, its only going to be more for each successive mission. It's time we end the throw away mentality if we really want to explore our solar system.

And again this view continually pops up. I understand that the risk averse mentality predominates today and that the pioneering spirit has been overshadowed by it, but space flight, either to Mars, to the moon, or to LEO is inherently risky. It is time we set goals that are worthy of the risks of human space flight.

Oh, but not to worry. We won't and we haven't. The Augustine Panel has made it clear that we're not going anywhere anytime soon. Believe me, I do understand the trepidation of not wanting to replay another Apollo disaster or Columbia accident and as a result see manned space flight put on hold for years. Here's what I am seeing, however: As outlined by the Augustine committee, all options of human space flight, including going to the moon are untenable under current budgetary contraints wish means that all dates will be pushed back. Dr. Rides presentation shows schedules being pushed back to the late 2020's and early 2030's--just for getting to the moon. That says nothing of going to Mars.

The way I see it, then, if we go to Mars, which we can do, and establish a foot hold rather than a boot print, we will foster an environment that can sustain the human space flight program. If it fails and we lose the crew, you are probably right. The human space flight will see stagnation for years to come--perhaps 10-20 years. Who knows? That, in and of itself, is difficult to predict given the transient and superficial whims of the American public and political agendas, not to mention the short memeroy of that same public. The other option is following one of the options as presented by the Augustine committee, which means that we will see the stagnation of human spaceflight for about 10-20 years due to budgetary constraints. I say we go to Mars because I think we have a real chance for success. We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. When we set our sites on the moon, we had virtually zero experience in space and all of the techniques that were mission critical had to be developed en route: eight years later we were on the moon. We are much more prepared today to go to Mars than we were in the 1960's to go to the moon--but we did and succeeded. The point is just that--we can do it. What we have to avoid is the one time trip mentality....

And as far as the one time mission metality--you're right: we should not go to Mars if it is only for one time. That's why we should choose the right architecture which has built into its design a sustainability component. Mars Direct and NASA's Design Reference plans have this specifically to ensure that this would not simply be a boot print and flag pole exercise. The most important components of the mission are, in fact, reusable: the Hab. And as far as things getting more expensive with each successive mission? I'm not sure how that makes sense. Well, wait. No, it does. With gov't running things. Yes. But normally, when you learn how to do something and put something on the production line, start up costs are always initially more expensive and the costs go down afterward.

Both the Mars Direct and DRM plans are architectures that fit into the current budget...but I'm positive they will not be taken advantage of. Innovation and ingenuity are not longer staples of the American Space program. We will watch clever engineering solutions and technological developtment by other coutries settting out on the final frontier catch up to and out pace us in space, and then as a result, in other sectors as we allow our human space flight program to stagnate, sending astronauts millions of miles in circles for months at a time, and leave them at the end of their journey no more than a couple hundred miles up.

 

[Swampcat]

I like the paradigm many of you are espousing. IMHO, the creation of an Interplanetary Exploration Vehicle would be much more beneficial to our long term interests in space than any kind of destination based program.

There is clear benefit in Apollo-style, one-off missions, but they provide little in the way of sustainability and affordability over the long term. What is needed is a space transportation infrastructure that would allow us to go anywhere in the Solar System in reasonable comfort, speed and safety. This vehicle could clearly be a follow-up to the research and development that went into the International Space Station, though it might more econimically be based on newer technologies. This vehicle would be a test bed for advanced propulsion and power technologies, as well as a laboratory for human health and adaptation to long duration spaceflight and our ability to manage it. The ability to add landers and surface support equipment at some future time, when we're ready for that step (and can afford it), would be useful.

I'm quite aware of the current technological impediments to the realization of such a vehicle, but I believe it would provide us with much more flexibility than current sortie-based architectures can manage and would, in the long run, greatly reduce the cost of interplanetary exploration and exploitation. It might take 20 years to work out the bugs and develop such a vehicle, but it appears that we are not going anywhere near the Moon or Mars within that time so why not invest that time in something that would take us a major step forward in our spacefaring capabilities?

Yes, we would need LEO shuttles of some sort, both passenger and cargo versions and a launch vehicle capable of lifting the largest pieces of the Interplanetary Exploration Vehicle, but that technology exists. It's only a matter of using what is available in the market place and putting the pieces together. NASA's job would be to coordinate with commercial and international partners and assist in the development of required technologies.

 

[EarthlingX]

Orion is an Earth reentry vehicle. It's not a Mars spacecraft. NASA is currently building it just so we have a way to ISS once the shuttle is retired, and possibly to the moon.

No one at this point has suggested that the Mars mission won't be international. A Mars mission is yet only a dream in some designer's computer. Lets spend the time pushing all nations to use the best technology for the Mars mission. There are designers all over the world working on this problem, it's not just an American problem.

Mars lander should be SSTO, mix of whats most fresh and tested.
If you have a lander which require refueling on surface and in orbit, you can land and ascent in half that deep gravity well, but would have to stay in one part, to be repeatable.
Mars lander lands in atmosphere, which how ever thin, causes other problems and offers different solutions.
So forget atmosphere for the moment, just keep it in sight, go everywhere else, until you know what to do with it.

 

[ApolloBoy]

As far as the way of getting to Mars is concerned, much of this remains to be a factor of what our long-term plans for Mars is. Do we want to send people to Mars to collect some rocks, and look around for a while? Or do we see Mars as a habitable planet? A Martian settlement is not that far out of an idea and would save money in the long run.

Perhaps the best way to do it would to be to build a station. A small station orbiting Mars. Not so much a science station, but a "spaceport" so to speak. Have another above the earth. Not very big. Just enough room to let different vehicles dock.

The concept is that a ship going between Earth and Mars could be highly more efficient if its mission started and ended in Low Planetary Orbit rather then on the ground. As with transportation ships specifically for ground-to home station transport. Even unmanned launch vehicles for cargo to the station.

The problem isn't getting from Earth to Mars. The problem is that we are just want to do it in one big step with one big rocket, when using multiple more efficient and cheaper to operate rockets would be the way to go. But like I said. The long-term Mars mission goals will have to determine if this is a logical concept or not.

 

[radarredux]

Perhaps the best way to do it would to be to build a station.

One proposal that has been floating around is a mission not to land on Mars but to go to Mars' moon Phobos. Because it is tidal locked, if you "land" on the Mars facing side you are largely protected from radiation from the Sun. When Phobos is between Mars and the Sun, your landing site is in Phobos' shadow, and thus protected by Phobos itself. When Phobos is on the far side of Mars, your landing site is in Mars' shadow. Clearly you will get the Sun's rays at oblique angles, and there is galactic radiation not from the Sun, but I found the idea interesting.

The concept is that a ship going between Earth and Mars could be highly more efficient if its mission started and ended in Low Planetary Orbit rather then on the ground.

Look up "Mars Cycler" or "Aldrin Cycler". It turns out there are regular orbital trajectories between Earth and Mars. Once you get a spacecraft into that trajectory, it will continue to orbit between Earth and Mars with virtually no propellant needed. You could create a larger spacecraft with plenty of radiation shielding (and maybe creature comforts), and accelerate it only once to reach the Aldrin Cycler trajectory. It would never leave the trajectory, endlessly orbiting between Earth and Mars. Then you would pack astronauts into a small spacecraft and accelerate it to meed the larger spacecraft as it flies by Earth, dock with it, and then the astronauts spend the 146 days or so in the larger spacecraft. Then when they approach Mars, they transfer back to the smaller vehicle, and then decelerate to enter Mars' orbit or land on the surface.

 

[EarthlingX]

The concept is that a ship going between Earth and Mars could be highly more efficient if its mission started and ended in Low Planetary Orbit rather then on the ground.

Look up "Mars Cycler" or "Aldrin Cycler". It turns out there are regular orbital trajectories between Earth and Mars. Once you get a spacecraft into that trajectory, it will continue to orbit between Earth and Mars with virtually no propellant needed. You could create a larger spacecraft with plenty of radiation shielding (and maybe creature comforts), and accelerate it only once to reach the Aldrin Cycler trajectory. It would never leave the trajectory, endlessly orbiting between Earth and Mars. Then you would pack astronauts into a small spacecraft and accelerate it to meed the larger spacecraft as it flies by Earth, dock with it, and then the astronauts spend the 146 days or so in the larger spacecraft. Then when they approach Mars, they transfer back to the smaller vehicle, and then decelerate to enter Mars' orbit or land on the surface.

Could we just build a ship first, use it as station ? Just refuel at destination ? Let that tanker evolve into station. Use slow ships for resupply, fast for people.

We start somewhere close (delta V wise / time), tow some asteroid to a libration point or in Moon orbit ?
You can still make a cycler with it, but start close, under half to the Mars, Ceres, Vesta or Jupiter.

Building a ship will teach you how to do deep space.