When will astronauts land on Mars? Planning Mars mission

[JonClarke]

What's need is to have a series of stepped programs that show favourable return (i.e. 20% after tax etc.) at increasing levels of investment. Investors will need to know that space entertainment programs have competative rates on return before they will invest in a human Mars mission funded along these lines. So successful investment in LEO entertainment, robot rovers on the Moon and then Mars, humans on the Moon would all pave the way.<br /><br />But remember, the higher the investment the more conservative the investors will be. Risk is a dirty word when you have a few billion invested. Or even a few million. I was involved once in discussions over a space themed reality TV show. It collapsed because it was too expensive and risky, in the end the investors would prefer to spend less money for a similar return with less risk - yet another Survivor in other words.<br /><br />Jon<br /><br /> <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>

 

[pocket_rocket]

Survivor- Victoria crater comes to mind.<br /><br />Or maybe CSI-FOM? Ares Idol?

 

[JonClarke]

See through MCP suits for the contestants a must! <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>

 

[yoda9999]

I'm not sure watching someone survive in space will be all that exciting as surviving on an island. It's not so much the human body surviving, it's the life support systems surviving. The human is 100% dependent on systems. In space, people are either dead or not dead. They won't be hunting or gathering food. They either have enough food left, or they don't. They won't be braving the elements. If they can't fix the broken heater, they will freeze to death. It's not like the weather will improve. Maybe a hydroponic garden would add some excitement. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

There are different issues here. The project I was involved would have involved a simulated Mars mission in a suitable desert and two teams completing to complete a series of tasks.<br /><br />Whether the subscribing public will find a real Mars mission exciting enough is one of the unproven assumptions of this way of funding a mission. It's the obvious question for an investor to ask, too. On one hand the Mars rover site had millions of hits. On the other hand, the interest soon dried up. A human mission might generate more interest, but the public soon got bored with Apollo, have? people have an enormous capability to take the extraordinary for granted. That is why "reality" shows have so many contrived issues. A properly trained Mars crew is unlikely to quarrel, wll not have sexual conflict, and won't have daily life threatening emergencies. It won't be meeting threatening or seductive aliens either. And how many movies about the first mission to Mars do not have aliens, conflict, sexual tension, major technical malfunction?<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>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The [TV] project I was involved would have involved a simulated Mars mission in a suitable desert and two teams completing to complete a series of tasks."<br /><br />I'm very curious about this project. What was the production company? What was the TV broadcast network? What year of production? Etc.

 

[qso1]

JonClarke:<br />And how many movies about the first mission to Mars do not have aliens, conflict, sexual tension, major technical malfunction?<br /><br />Me:<br />Could not have said it better myself, in fact, how many movies about real, or reality based space flight are there as opposed to strictly sci fi? That'll answer the question on public interest in actual space flight. Let me volunteer the three reality based space flight big screen releases (Two of them anyway) I know of over the past nearly two decades as a sign of public interest...especially since as we all know, movie makers largely gauge making movies based on what they think will sell.<br /><br />The Right Stuff released in 1983 or 84, and it utilized much bravado and conflict between astronauts and managers.<br /><br />Apollo 13 released in 1994 IIRC. The obvious, in space disaster...no movie called Apollo 10.<br /><br />From The Earth To The Moon (Non theater HBO special) released in 1998. This IMO was as close as it got to reality based historical space flight presented as accurately as possible. The astronauts portrayed largely in human terms, Aldrins alchoholism, the comment made about putting the white scarves away for the Apollo 17 segment. Had anyone other than Tom Hanks proposed this, I doubt it would have been picked up. Especially if investors look at polls on whether human space flight is worth the money. There are probably more movies about Hitlers dog than there are actual spaceflight.<br /><br />Not only that, FTETTM is the only movie I'm aware of that ever presented project Gemini as it pretty much was. As opposed to the loosly referred Gemini of "I Dream Of Genie" fame. <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>

 

[greythanis]

qso1=<br />ne way would be to send a lander into Earth orbit and land it at a Mars like locale. If the lander can handle coming through Earths atmosphere, it can handle Mars. The benefit of designing to that specification is the overdesign factor that allows for a comfy safety margin. The drawback as always is cost.<br /><br />The "overdesign" is actually and "underdesign". the earth's atmosphere is WAY different to mars. the airshape would be completely wrong, not to mention the gravity makes the craft fall at not only a faster rate, but different way.<br /><br />on another note, here's what i suggest for a mars mission:<br />you expand the AresV, say with 3 boosters instead of 2. you would load the core stage with more fuel and engines. Unless NASA raises the roof of its vehicle assemble building, you could mount the payload on the side (reducing the efficiency of the LV, but compensated largely by it's greater size.). Your mars vehicle would play an all in one role of mothership, lander, ERV. it's launch vehicle would throw it on a lunar flyby that would slingshot off the moon back towards the earth. this would allow a week of checkouts and possible abbort phase directly back to earth. otherwise the vehicle will use the Earth (largest object available for flyby) to speed it towards mars.<br /><br /><b>vehicle design</b><br />a roughly cylindrical design which has on side that has solar generators (russian concept of heated fluid to generate power) and doubles as a radiation shield. the other side has thermal rejection system. the cylinder has docking ports at the top, and rockets at the bottom.<br />artificial gravity is provided by having a thether(s) that is strung from the spent trans-lunar-injector stage to the top of the ship, acting as a counter weight to spin the assembly.<br />the only trouble I have is the associated spacecraft. Orion is a good contender because it's structure fits the pseudo-g mission frame, but it's a heavy b******. three soyuz would increase the

 

[qso1]

Greythanis:<br />The "overdesign" is actually and "underdesign". the earth's atmosphere is WAY different to mars. the airshape would be completely wrong, not to mention the gravity makes the craft fall at not only a faster rate, but different way.<br /><br />Me:<br />Earths atmosphere is much thicker than Mars. But the aerodynamic shape of a vehicle would be similar. Look at Apollo CM and look at the Viking lander aeroshell. The primary problem is reentry heating in Earths thicker atmosphere which is why I stated testing such a vehicle on Earth would require designing it to earth atmospheric reentry conditions which would generate higher temps as opposed to the much thinner Mars atmosphere. Other conditions apply to what kind of temps will be experienced as well but in general. As I see it, if it can land on Earth, it can land on Mars.<br /><br />Greythanis:<br />the only trouble I have is the associated spacecraft. Orion is a good contender because it's structure fits the pseudo-g mission frame, but it's a heavy b******. three soyuz would increase the redundancy and weigh 4tons less, but docking them might prove a little troublesome.<br /><br />Me:<br />Sounds like a pretty decent concept for getting to Mars and using a sidemount booster would work fine. There are tradeoffs in every design. Especially since NASA is not likely to ever raise the VAB roof. But on what you mentioned that I cut and pasted. You might consider a vehicle designed specifically for the purpose. I realize your looking at off the shelf as much as possible but sometimes you have to consider a new design when OTS won't work, assuming it dosn't work.<br /><br />I'm not clear what the Orion or 3 Soyuz vehicles are for. <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>