Mars Landing

[gambit]

I'm not too knowledgable in the space department, but what's stopping us from landing on Mars? I know they got some bad weather up there but is it truly so terrible we can't land some astronauts, even for just enough time for them to play some inspirational music in their heads as they plant a flag and grab some dirt, then get out of there.

We're always talking about how space is the next and last frontier and you'd think it'd be becoming fairly important with us eating up all the planets natural resources like a fat kid at mcdonalds, among other things.

Can someone enlighten me here?

[Ramashan]

A big part of it, other than funding, is distance.

The moon is a relative weekend get away compared to going to Mars. The moon revolves aroung the earth, so its a lot easier to jump from one gravity well to another and there is no real constraint on when you can go.

I'm over simplifying, but basically you just point and light your engines for a bit and your there.

As for Mars, its very far away. I don't have the specifics, but I believe its a 4 month journey each way. Then, you have to deal with the fact that earth and mars and revolving around the sun at different speeds. The earth I believe makes 2 revolutions for every one of mars. Which means we only come close together every two years. So, you need to stay on Mars a while before you can head on back to earth.

All this takes planning because if something goes wrong, like Apollo 13 there is no way they can just sling shot home and make it in any reasonable time.

I believe that any Mars mission will be on the order of a 2 to 3 year mission away from earth.

[gambit]

Hmm that sounds like it could be bad but it's not like our space programs aren't averse to a bit of danger. I'm sure there are some astronauts who are willing, we've got the technology and the balls...but I understand we're taking our time.

[Ramashan]

I'm sure there would be people lining up to have the chance to go to Mars. Its just a mission on a much larger scope than the Apollo program.

There was a doc on the Science Channel recently about a mars mission and of all people, James Cameron, the film director, has come up with one of the best ideas.

He takes the whole multiple part plan to its limit. He thinks we should fling parts of the mission to mars for while so that the fuel is there already, supplies, rovers etc. All except the lander so that the crew can maintain it along the way.

So, they are definitely working on how to go about it.

[gambit]

Heh that is a pretty good idea. Although how would we get them to land somewhat close to eachother and without destroying themselves? I mean I dont know how low of a gravity Mars has but is it so low as we can just chuck stuff at Mars and it'll land safely?

[Ramashan]

Well, another part of the plan is to have the lander be on wheels. So that the entire habitat is mobile and can go to all the sites. Which is an interesting idea and sort of goes outside what we think as a traditional landing situation.

This way, the astronauts are not stranded in one place and limited to one area of exploration. If we're going, we might as well see things.

There is also ideas for space suites that people sort of climb in and out of that latch onto the habitat. This way they don't need to depressurize inside and limit contamination within the habitat.

But these are all ideas at the moment.

[Smasher]

I think first we need to build a space colony on the moon before attempting such mission. With a moon colony it would be easier for NASA to send a rescue mission if something goes wrong plus they can refuel, send/receive messages faster, and overall be safer. A manned Mars mission is at least 20 good years into the future unless competition with European and Chinese space programs escalate which could provide higher budgets but anything is possible.

[Tiwaz]

Let's not forget supplies. 3 years requires whole lot of food, water and oxygen even if some can be recycled. Hydroponics are still project in development.
Or radiation. Those astronauts (or taikonauts or cosmonauts) will be out there for a long time without protection. Ships would need some serious shielding against rays.

[christof139]

Faster and larger and more protected ships will be needed, or it will be only two astronauts and a lot of rations in a smaller ship with a limited excursion/exploration time on Mars. Ion power might to used on a larger scale than it is now is in the form of directional engines on orbitting spacecraft.

Chris

[The Friend]

Well a human landing on mars would be a very expensive operation. Naturally there has to be a high return on Interest in such a case. Now consider what can be the returns.
1) To tap the Natural resources from another planet, extensive tests have to be done to establish the safety. This would be a lengthy operation.

2) In any case what will be the point in sending astronauts there ? Certainly not for a photo shoot. If they go they shall go for some purpose. With the kind of Technology we have now, Bots can perform much higher level of observation and sample finding and would be much more beneficial to space research than an Astronaut,especially in a hostile climate.

3) There was an idea floated long back about a developing a colony in Mars. For this Mars has to be made habitable. Again a huge cost bearing operation. No space agency can bear such costs now and there is no need to do it now as well.

[Ramashan]

I believe part of the plan is to build the ship that will take the astronauts to Mars in orbit. Like attached to the IST or something like that. Because launching the same rocket that will take them there is not very effective.

As for supplies. This is part of the reason why they are thinking of just flinging a lot of the supplies to Mars in smaller capsules. Saves money and energy since the astronauts don't have to take it with them. But yes, they will have to live in a closed system which includes a hydroponic garden to supliment their supplies. But this is doable with modern tech.

As for the shielding of interplanetary travel. I have heard that there are ideas to create an artificial magneticsphere or have a shielded area within the craft. I believe they will design the craft to be nuclear powered.

As for why to go. Why not? Why spending millions to climb everest. And if what Pheonix's sampling of the soil is true, Mars could sustain plant life. Why not begin testing this and preping it for further human colonization? Again, Why? The asteroid belt is much closer to Mars than it is to earth. Just think of all the natural resorces including precious metals that could exist here. Eventually I forsee a space economy once technology advances to make it more affordable. But if the returns exceed the expense, than why not.

As for setting up a Moon base first to potentially mount a rescue. The moon really isn't any closer to Mars than the Earth is. The Moon follows the earth so the difference in time might be three or four days. What does that mean when the stranded astronauts are 3 months away and getting further every moment?

Here are some sites for further reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...mars_crew.html

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/...rover_825.html

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/head...d12nov97_1.htm

[Syron]

I'm not too knowledgable in the space department, but what's stopping us from landing on Mars? I know they got some bad weather up there but is it truly so terrible we can't land some astronauts, even for just enough time for them to play some inspirational music in their heads as they plant a flag and grab some dirt, then get out of there.

We're always talking about how space is the next and last frontier and you'd think it'd be becoming fairly important with us eating up all the planets natural resources like a fat kid at mcdonalds, among other things.

Can someone enlighten me here?

Quite simple really.........there isn't currently a vehicle to do it! The shuttle is designed to work in earth orbit only, and soyuz could only potentially go as far the moon.


The thing is, its been learnt since the Apollo experience that just a flags and footprints journey does not really get you anywhere.

The space agencies have focused on sustainable space exploration. To do this first we need to go back to the moon before we consider mars.

The moon is the perfect staging point for further exploration having resources and being a perfect place to conduct science such as huge telescope arrays.
This is why the focus of the the US's VSE is the moon first. This includes developing new rockets and capsules that are designed for exploration.

Also, it's hard to gat to mars!

You have a variety of problems involved. For a start travelling to Mars takes you outside of the Earths magnetic bubble leaving astronauts exposed to deadly cosmic radiation. You need to develop shielding that isn't too heavy to lift in a rocket!

Then you have to understand that it isn't as simple as going to the moon (if you think going to the moon is "simple"!).

Unless you have a large enough rocket, and we're talking at least the size of the Saturn V if not bigger, then you can't fire anything like the equipment needed with current launchers. This is why NASA is planning the new Ares V. The only other way is to launch many medium rockets and join the components in orbit using automated docking, only Europe has demonstrated the ability to to this though, once! Even the russian automated system requires human intervention.

[Hounf of Culan]

I don't think anyone mentioned it, but zero gravity, or very close to that level, is incredibly damaging to our bodies. When astronauts come back from current space trips their bodies are really quite frail. At the current speed it would take to reach mars, our bodies would be totally unprepared to endure the stresses of mars' gravity after spending 3 months atrophying in space.

[Roman Rapper]

I don't think anyone mentioned it, but zero gravity, or very close to that level, is incredibly damaging to our bodies. When astronauts come back from current space trips their bodies are really quite frail. At the current speed it would take to reach mars, our bodies would be totally unprepared to endure the stresses of mars' gravity after spending 3 months atrophying in space.

In theory NASA scientists have already solved this problem. When the shuttle is in space and making the journey toward Mars, If they make it spin as it is traveling then the effect is to create a low intensity field of gravity within the shuttle for the people inside.
Of course, theory is very different to practice, and it has not yet been demonstrated to work in the way in which they claim it could.

[Ramashan]

I don't think anyone mentioned it, but zero gravity, or very close to that level, is incredibly damaging to our bodies

That's why current plans include artificial gravity for the voyage to and from Mars. Cause your right. Zero gravity messes up bone density amongst a few other things.

[Heinz Guderian]

I'm not too knowledgable in the space department, but what's stopping us from landing on Mars?

Can someone enlighten me here?

The Greys. nah just kidding.

Its the Nordics.

If you find intergalactic war funny, then your sick man. Anal probes aint funny. My teacher at my Catholic boys school was an alien. He must have been there chief sceintific officer, cos he probed the of Year 8. I wonder where he is now? :hmmm:

[sparty]

I loved this:

http://twitter.com/MarsPhoenix/statuses/839088619

Cracked me up...All I could think was "One small step for man...one giant leap for mankind."

Now we get:

Are you ready to celebrate? Well, get ready: We have ICE!!!!! Yes, ICE, *WATER ICE* on Mars! w00t!!! Best day ever!!