When will astronauts land on Mars? Planning Mars mission

[yoda9999]

I am guessing sometime after 2048. It will take us many years to test the vehicles to take us to Mars, select the best landing sites, test astronaut survivability on roundtrip missions, and test the Mars landing/launch craft.<br /><br />Example timeline:<br /><br />2018 manned mission to Moon<br />2028 begin unmanned roundtrip missions to Mars, test Mars vehicles and lander<br />2038 first manned roundtrip missions to Mars, test human survivability, rehearse future manned landings<br />2048 first missions to send humans to surface of Mars<br /><br />How much safety should there be on a manned Mars landing mission?<br />I think the public will want a "guarantee" that the astronauts can get to Mars, land on Mars, return to Mars orbit, and return home. This could mean adding redundancy at critical points during the mission. For example, we can send ahead an extra return vehicle to Mars orbit, and stockpile fuel, water and food in Mars orbit and at the landing sites. We could even put extra launch vehicles at the landing sites incase the astronaut's lander is damaged and can't return to Mars orbit. At critical points in the mission, the astronauts would have multiple choices, with minimal chance of being stranded.<br /><br />How many astronauts on the Mars missions? 3 to 5? If one astronaut gets sick or goes insane (it could be a long trip), you will need another to monitor him. You might need 2 others to command the vehicle, and 1 astronaut to the Mars surface.<br /><br />I think the first manned mission and landing will be very conservative. Just put one or two astronauts on Mars, look around for a few hours, then return to Mars orbit, and go home.

 

[nacnud]

IIRC the minimum stay on Mars is 30 days with about two years of travel time. Your going to have to do more than a flags and foot prints mission given those times.

 

[qso1]

An impressive plan to be sure, especially with the emphasis on rehearsing the operation of various vehicles.<br /><br />If the VSE results in regular lunar landings by 2018, we would be able to do much of Mars mission rehearsals on or around the moon. This being the reason Mars mission advocates generally think going to the moon first is the most prudent course of action.<br /><br />The timeline your proposing is one hopelessly dependant on several changes of Presidential Administrations. Bush 1 proposed a lengthy timeline for the Mars mission plans he proposed in the late 1980s. This plan was basically DOA in 1990, timeline too long, cost too much. The addition of all the missions it would take to make the landing mission absolutely safe entails a price tag most Americans are simply going to balk at.<br /><br />I don't even think the current Bush lunar proposal will survive unscathed after 2008.<br /><br />The public may wish for a guarantee of astronaut safety, but the fact is. There is no 100% guarantee. You might achieve 99.99999999999% on a plan such as your proposing, but the cost will be prohibitive.<br /><br />Not only that, attention spans of todays public would be directly responsible for collapse of the whole thing at some point. Your sending humans on non-landing rehearsal missions in 2038 then landing them a full decade later?<br /><br />yoda9999:<br />How much safety should there be on a manned Mars landing mission?<br /><br />Me:<br />As much as is practicable which is of course a vague answer. If we go for 100%, will never go to Mars. Reason being, the fatality will occur where we will least expect it.<br /><br />The timeline:<br />You could do the missions you describe every 2 years starting with the Mars trip in 2028. This would advance your 2038 trip to 2030 and the landing to 2032.<br /><br />Crew size I think would be 4 minimum, 5 or 6 ideal. Any more would be great but would entail additional cost in terms of life support which in turn would depend on what the publ <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>

 

[yoda9999]

Thanks for reading. I was thinking 10 years between milestones to take into account of politics, analysis of tests, failures, more tests, etc. I'm a pessimist, so I wouldn't be surprised if we don't land on Mars years or decades after 2048. There's just so many delays that can happen, so many unforseen difficulties. What if we find out humans just are not yet equipped or trained for such a long journey? OTOH, I'm pretty sure if things went smoothly, there was enough $$$, we can land on Mars much earlier.<br /><br />I was considering that since Project Apollo had 4 missions to test everything before Apollo 11, there would be manned missions to Mars first before an actual manned landing. Of course, the Moon is only a few days away.<br /><br />I hope the manned Mars missions will be paid for by several countries and companies.<br /><br />I forgot that once the astronauts reach Mars, they might have to wait a few weeks or months for Earth to be in the right place to start the return trip. I guess they need to spend more time on Mars and in orbit.

 

[qso1]

Apollo was called a "Crash program" which is generally meant to mean a program that would normally take 20 years is compressed to 10. In the case of Mars. If done the traditional way, it would not be sustainable much after 20-25 years. A crash program to Mars could probably be done in 8 years because unlike Apollo, we have the experience base and some hardware development experience from shuttle/ISS.<br /><br />Normal development time for a Mars mission from official go ahead to first footfalls should be no more than 20 years tops. The missions you recommend could all be done within that time frame.<br /><br />I don't personally think we will go to Mars unless private industry in conjuction with NASA, or even without NASA, does it. Something has to be discovered to make it relatively easy to justify to a Congress/public always willing, year after year to come up with reasons not to go.<br /><br />A discovery such as life on Mars or evidence of past life which would justify a base. A base where study of either but especially living organisms, could be done in the native environment.<br /><br />Any industrial capability could spin off from there. <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>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

I think Private Industry will beat the World Government to Luna & Mars. Mining interests to the Moon first, then Colonists to Mars. <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>

 

[qso1]

If current events are any indication, then private industry will probably lead the way. But there will have to be that period where P.E. gets the price of space exploration down to where they can make a profit. Otherwise, they won't go. I tend to think P.E. will work with NASA on the moon and mars until they get an infrastructure that allows for profitable operations. At that time, NASA will probably be a regulatory agency of human space flight. Just as the FAA is now for commercial flight. <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>

 

[j05h]

> If current events are any indication, then private industry will probably lead the way. But there will have to be that period where P.E. gets the price of space exploration down to where they can make a profit. Otherwise, they won't go. I tend to think P.E. will work with NASA on the moon and mars until they get an infrastructure that allows for profitable operations.<br /><br />Private enterprise will lead the way or nothing will happen, NASA has proven they can't afford to go to Mars using the Old Way (ie. space socialism). The infrastructure that NASA wants to build on the Moon has very little to do with what commercial groups will build there, IMHO. Private does not always equal "for profit", either: it includes universities, churches, wealthy individuals and organizations like National Geographic. Not every private group is driven by the need to make money. <br /><br /> /> At that time, NASA will probably be a regulatory agency of human space flight. Just as the FAA is now for commercial flight.<br /><br />The FAA's AST (office of commercial space transport) already has jurisdiction over commercial human spaceflight. NASA is not, nor will they be, a regulatory agency. They are not equipped to regulate, nor act as a Ports Authority or stakes-claim agency. AST has done an incredible job at outreach to the new space companies, even if Burt Rutan complains about them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[owenander]

If the government does it at least 50 years<br />If the current private industry continues the way it's going I would say 20 tops

 

[qso1]

J05H:<br />Private enterprise will lead the way or nothing will happen, NASA has proven they can't afford to go to Mars using the Old Way (ie. space socialism). <br /><br />Me:<br />The real reason IMO that NASA cannot go to Mars is "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers". We have a Congress and public not willing to adequately fund Mars expeditions and a NASA budget that has been less than 1% GDP since 1974. It was 2% GDP and up prior to that.<br /><br />NASA can't afford it because we as a society have better things to do such as fund rebuild efforts (Iraq)outside the USA and run up huge deficits.<br /><br />Mars at the present time is estimated to be anywhere from a $50 to 500 billion proposition depending on the method chosen to go there. Well beyond all but a very few private industry entities. Of those few, how many would invest in purely space investments such as developing Mars. I do think P.E. will have to become involved however. But involved where they are starting now which is reducing the cost of getting to low orbit. Get that problem solved and Mars is much closer to reality.<br /><br />J05H:<br />NASA is not, nor will they be, a regulatory agency.<br /><br />Me:<br />This is an assumption. How can you or anyone else know what NASA will be doing in twenty years. NASA might even be mothballed for all we know. <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>

 

[owenander]

NASA can't afford it because they have to jump through hoops for all the bureaucrats in washington that not only take a piece of the pie, but double the time it takes to get something done doubling the cost of the job in itself.<br /><br />A private company can take half the time with half the people and half the money. Oh and probably make a profit =P

 

[qso1]

Washington politics certainly plays a role but I think theres more to it than just the politics of Washington. Private enterprise would have surely found a reason to go to Mars if it were inexpensive enough for them to afford it.<br /><br />I'll use Microsoft Corporation as an example, or at least Paul Allen. His net worth alone hovers around $20 billion dollars and he has funded the Rutan effort, but that was maybe $30 million. He also funds the current SETI Allen array project.<br /><br />http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/54/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=54&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=1217&<br /><br />Microsoft as a corporation posted earnings of just under $10 billion dollars per one of the quarters or presumably $40 plus billion for the year assuming continued growth.<br /><br />Would Microsoft invest anywhere from $50-500 billion to Mars? Not when its primary product is software. Not to mention for the lowest quoted estimate to Mars, Microsoft would have to invest an entire years earnings.<br /><br />Imagine other companies, some close to Microsoft in earnings but the vast majority not so close and none with products for going to Mars.<br /><br />Having said that, private enterprise may yet find a way around the cost barrier but that will have to be proven. <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>

 

[j05h]

<i>> The real reason IMO that NASA cannot go to Mars is "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers". We have a Congress and public not willing to a....NASA can't afford it because we as a society have better things to do such as fund rebuild efforts (Iraq)outside the USA and run up huge deficits. </i><br /><br />This is why NASA won't be going to Mars anytime soon, and why their Lunar return is modest to minimalist. They can't afford it and are stuck doing business the old way. They've planned fairly well within a known budget. <br /><br /><i>> Mars at the present time is estimated to be anywhere from a $50 to 500 billion proposition depending on the method chosen to go there. Well beyond all but a very few private industry entities. Of those few, how many would invest in purely space investments such as developing Mars. I do think P.E. will have to become involved however. But involved where they are starting now which is reducing the cost of getting to low orbit. Get that problem solved and Mars is much closer to reality. </i><br /><br />Cheap Access To Space is still the goal, of course. For certain markets, the "magic point" has been reached. We have (limited) tourism in space, now. Other new niches include CUBESAT for University satellites and XM/Sirius. As far as developing Mars, we are realistically talking trillion$ in investment, but you get a planet and 2 moons out of the deal! Research bases are something the US government could afford to build alone, but the only force on Earth that can actually develop Mars is global capitalism. <br /><br />Truly CHEAP lift ($500/lb?) will have to wait for a higher capacity space-line. See the "Truax Engineering" thread for some modernized SeaDragon concepts. In the mean-time there are plenty of new markets to be served by current launchers. New vehicles (Falcon) offer hope of broader access and a new way of doing things. <br /><br /><i> >> J05H: NASA is not, nor will they be, a regulatory agency.<br /> /> Me: This is an assumption. H</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

When?<br /><br />It depends. Mostly it depends on how ambitious (large) a mission is flown and it depends on how much risk is acceptable. With today's technology a high risk 'flags and footprints' manned landing, or a low risk manned flyby mission is possible.<br /><br />Back before President Kennedy announced his intention to land an American on the moon, the Soviets were considering a manned flyby mission to Mars. In fact the Soviet's giant N-1 launch vehicle, a so-called moon rocket, was in fact designed for the Mars flyby mission. It's a big reason why the N-1 failed as a moon rocket and why the Soviets lost the race to the moon.<br /><br />Replicating that Mars flyby mission today would be expensive, but fairly low risk and non-taxing of current technology. If you squeezed the mission crew down to three or even two people it wouldn't even be horribly expensive.<br /><br />A manned landing stunt on the other hand, would be very risky with current technology. But give the Chinese 15 years to develop their fledgling manned spaceflight capabilities, and maybe they would be willing to accept that risk.

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br />Cheap Access To Space is still the goal, of course.<br /><br />Me:<br />Once thats been achieved, the rest will follow. Some things may never be realized while others will, but cheap access will make it possible.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />Ok, based on past experience and status-quo logic, NASA won't ever be a regulatory agency.<br /><br />Me:<br />Fair enough.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />If I understand the base legal situation now, you (ie. private entity) can fly a Mars mission now. You'd need permission for the launches and have to develop the hardware, but there is nothing legal stopping such efforts.<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats pretty much how I see it. But this in part because the government has no need to formulate legislation or regulations since there are no serious Mars missions being developed outside NASA. Even NASAs plans are nebulous at best. As you pointed out though, you would need permission to launch etc.<br /><br />Once someone outside NASA begins to cut metal, test vehicles, then a plan serious enough will be materializing and government may decide to regulate. <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>

 

[spacefire]

we will never get to Mars with current technology. The investment is too big for a politician's four year attention span. Programs will get cancelled before they even left the drawing board, like it's been happening for the past 30 years. VSE has nothing to do with Mars.<br /><br />We need nuclear rockets and a cheap way to hoist them to LEO before we fire them up.<br /><br /><br />Or the antigravity drive. Which, remember, might come sooner than you think <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

We probably have the technology today for the first manned mission to Mars, but for long term missions, we probably need a lot more tech. I would hope that politicians and PE look on the first manned Mars mission not just from the profit angle, but more for the human experience angle. The first manned Mars mission isn't necessarily how you would carry out future missions.<br /><br />I think the human factor is the big unknown. We just don't know how humans respond to interplanetary travel that can last years. It will take a long time to test all the equipment and supplies that allow humans to survive in comfort. This is not like ISS that can depend on Earth support. There is a high risk the people we send to Mars will be stranded at Mars because some propulsion system conks out, fuel gets leaked, supplies damaged, miscalculations, etc. I think a lot of consumables need to be sent to Mars ahead of time, landers tested, etc. <br /><br />Since we got a Moon mission by 2018, and attempts to put a base on the Moon, I think manned Mars missions will take a back seat for awhile until the first testing for manned missions.

 

[Boris_Badenov]

"We need nuclear rockets and a cheap way to hoist them to LEO before we fire them up. "<br /><br /> 100% reusable nuclear rockets to reach LEO have already been designed. They are currently politically incorrect.<br /><br />"Or the antigravity drive. Which, remember, might come sooner than you think" <br /><br /> Have you stolen yet another of my designs?<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[docm]

The situation is in flux. There's an interesting article/interview with CSNR's (Center For Space Nuclear Research) Director Dr. Steven Howe;<br /><br />http://nuclearspace.com/article/Sview/HOWE_view.htm<br /><br />He favors NTR (Nuclear Thermal Rocket) over nuclear electric because of the higher efficiency; 15% for NE and 95% for NTR, with a Tungsten-cermat core for durability. <br /><br />He thinks a T-cermat NTR could be ready in a very short time since the basic work has already been done back in the 50's and 60's using graphite cores.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[torino10]

The real problem is in showing that the space environment is not just survivable but in fact livable.<br /><br />The general public will not support large scale or long term manned space endeavors, wether it be various government agencies or private enterprise, until research can show that humans can not only survive in the environment, but prosper.<br /><br />Space medicine needs to be advanced a lot, trials of centrifugal gravity should be tested in the microgravity environment. One test I'd like to see is if multiple generations of labratory mice are viable under reduced simulated Gravity. Bigelow aerospace seems to be on the right track with there Genesis modules, I just hope there failures are well analyzed and there successes are very well documented by non biased researchers.

 

[docm]

Not to mention the need for much improved radiation shielding to prevent radiation induced neurological damage, trabecular bone loss etc. etc. etc.<br /><br />They need both physical shields (water blankets, polyetheline barriers etc.) and electronic shielding to really do it right.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[torino10]

The obvious result of this thread is that people will need to see a mars sample return mission as a success, Zubrin's tech will have to be utilised for his worst nightmare, unmanned research making human missions superfluous in the short term. Human colinisation of space will not occur until humans understand how to prosper in leo, then learn how to prosper on luna.

 

[qso1]

This sort of illustrates the idea that we probably won't go to Mars without one h**l of a good reason. There is always a reason to not go.<br /><br />With that in mind. An unmanned sample return mission could provide the reason for a manned mission. If a sample turns out to have remains of microbiological life forms that might have died enroute because we'd have no way to know how to keep them alive. When that sample is studied. There will be some scientists who will state conclusively that it is microbiological remains. Other scientists will say microbiological remains...inconclusive.<br /><br />The only way to know for sure is to send humans and set up an outpost to study the organisms within their natural environment which also gets around the issue of cross contamination to the extent possible.<br /><br />If we found numerous types of micro biota on Mars, the outpost might well become a base. <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>

 

[yoda9999]

It'll be a shame if humans (I don't care who, NASA, ESA, Russia or China, or private corp) don't land on Mars by 2069, the 100th year anniversary of Apollo 11 moon landing.<br /><br />There's one big reason to go to Mars...because it's there!

 

[qso1]

yoda9999:<br />There's one big reason to go to Mars...because it's there! <br /><br />Me:<br />You and I, and others here at SDC would more than agree, but until mars missions get out from under tax payer funding...Most people won't care about the anniversary of Apollo 11 being celebrated with a human mars landing.<br /><br />If private industry can do it, I think they will by well before 2069. I'm thinking 2030-2040 would be realistic for a largely or even solely private industry funded effort. <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>