The main danger of a flight to Mars

[Ignat]

On average, using modern technology, a flight to Mars takes from 6 to 9 months. Astronauts will be exposed to significant amounts of cosmic radiation, which can increase their risk of developing cancer and other radiation-related diseases. Complete protection from cosmic radiation is unattainable using modern technologies.A typical mission to Mars can take anywhere from 1.5 to 3 years, including a round trip, as well as a stay on the surface of Mars.Estimates show that astronauts can receive a radiation dose of 0.5 to 1 Sievert per year in interplanetary space. For a 3-year mission, this can range from 1.5 to 3 Sievert .NASA sets radiation exposure limits for astronauts at 0.6 Sv per career for women and 1 Sv per career for men. Radiation doses exceeding these limits can significantly increase the risk of cancer and other radiation-related diseases.Thus, astronauts flying to Mars and back may receive significant radiation doses exceeding the established limits.

 

[promytius]

Wouldn't that be the least of their problems? They can't breathe the atmosphere, the temperature fluctuations, food and water supplies, alien bacteria/viruses, storms, meteorites, spare parts... it's a death march.

 

[Classical Motion]

A bridge too far.

 

[Atlan0001]

The Space Frontier and all its dangers can be dealt with and conquered by life as have all the frontiers of billions of years of history. All it takes is getting into the frontiers first and foremost to meet the environ. It never has been "safe" ("safety") first and foremost and never will be. As with any life the soft part is inside and the hard bark, roughly speaking, will be to outside. Only an absolutely closed world without any external frontier outside being exhausted to, a world Utopia (read: Dystopia), will have the hard parts eating the softer alive.

The problem with Mars is that it is a sinkhole singularity (far too little, far too late) unlike the superposition high frontier of the Lagrange points, planetary orbits, the asteroid belt, etc., and their superposition high frontier orbital potentials for vastness, for energies, for artificial gravities, and for custom manipulations, protections, facilitations, stations, colonization, and evolutionary technical and industrial revolutions. The sinkhole of Mars can be and should be taken "in passing!" Not first and foremost!

 

[promytius]

Strategically Mars is useless; tactically Mars is unsupportable; realistically Mars is not, nor ever will be a Total Recall. "We won't be back."

#1 AIR:
The Martian atmosphere is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (CO2) at around 95%, with smaller amounts of nitrogen (N2) at 2.7% and argon (Ar) at 1.6%. Trace amounts of oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO), and water vapor also exist.

 

[Ignat]

In my opinion, it is necessary to settle the moon first, and only then to make trips to Mars. In this case, flights to Mars will be both cheaper and safer. So far, Mars can be explored with the help of robots.

 

[Catastrophe]

Ignat, would it not be sufficient just to have a (temporary?) Lunar base?

This would ease the problems of full load Earth-Mars journey by using a lighter Moon to Mars lift off than Earth-Mars direct with full cargo - especially considering fuel?

Cat

 

[Ken Fabian]

Crewed missions to Mars are far more hype than substance and are not even close to achievable and including return capability in my view isn't optional. Each aspect of such a mission presents extraordinary difficulties on it's own; in combination they will overwhelm. But in my view Mars is not even especially desirable. It takes buying into unrealistic hype to find it desirable. Purely as thought experiment it can be fun to speculate but I don't mistake it for "plan".

In that thought experiment vein I note that in Delta- v terms the moons of Mars are of similar "cost" to reach as Earth's moon and without needing high boost rockets to get in and out of the gravity well. Deimos and Phobos appear to be carbonaceous, like carbonaceous chondrite asteroids, with high water content and therefore they will be abundant in chemical feedstocks suitable for making rocket fuels. (The moon has water but Hydrogen fuel is bulky, needing very large tanks and inclined to leak - not so good for long missions. Starship doesn't use it.)

Makes more sense to me to set up a fuel production facility on Deimos or Phobos so Mars landers (or Starship as lander) can start the descent close to fully fueled and for return trips to be refueled after the fuel intensive launch from Mars surface. And I see the ability to mine asteroid type objects as more useful, with potential to unlock actual commercial opportunities in asteroid resources. For SpaceX the ideal scenario is not private missions to Mars that are hugely expensive but make no profit, it is taxpayer funded missions, as contractor on a cost plus assured profit basis; no intrinsic commercial viability for Mars is required for that.

 

[motie]

Yes, land on Phobos. Do not land on Mars. Mission risk, fuel needs, and cargo needs are much less. Syncing to its rotation could be challenging. Controlling robots on the Martian surface would be easy from Phobos: simple transmitters and receivers; just a few milliseconds latency. You can easily launch from Phobos; it has almost no gravity. So you can refresh your human crew on a regular schedule to minimize health effects. If we ever get this far, we might not need to actually land on Mars for a very long time. This gives us time to prepare a base on Mars, and improve our tech. There are still plenty of risks: getting there from Earth without dying or going insane is a big one. Radiation on Phobos is another.

 

[Atlan0001]

1.) Earth to Earth orbit.
2.) Earth orbit to Lagrange fronter stations and colonies.
3.) Lagrange frontier stations and colonies to Mars orbiting stations and colonies.
4.) Mars orbiting stations and colonies (Mars' surface supporting facilitation and more) to Mars surface.
5.) And reverse.
6.) Lots of infrastructure and energy expansion in progress in the Space Frontier. Mars an active sideshow.

 

[Ignat]

Ignat, would it not be sufficient just to have a (temporary?) Lunar base?

This would ease the problems of full load Earth-Mars journey by using a lighter Moon to Mars lift off than Earth-Mars direct with full cargo - especially considering fuel?

Cat

First, of course, there will be a temporary base and flights from the Moon to Mars can already be planned. But the main focus should be on a long-term base on the Moon, not on Mars.