NASA Mars Mission

[AZRedhawk44]

Space missions have come up a couple times in recent threads, and a question has popped into my head:

Let's say the US sends a manned mission to Mars.  Such a craft would be assembled in multiple lifts and staged at the ISS probably.  It would take a year or so to travel to Mars, depending on the comparative orbits.

A small landing craft could touch down... no problem.

But a small landing craft can't take off and break Martian orbit like the Apollo lander could on the moon.

A large landing craft would probably need to take off horizontally since no launch platform would be present on Mars for a rocket-style launch.  Is there anywhere naturally flat enough on Mars to be used as a dirt-road runway like the Salt Flats we have?

And... can you pack enough fuel onto a Space-Shuttle-like craft so you can glide safely to a landing, then launch horizontally and break orbit on a planet with about 40% of our gravity?

Or... would NASA attempt to remotely build a vertical rocket launch facility completely by robotic delivery?

The idea of not only being first to land on a new planet, but also the first to break orbit from it on the same trip with no support infrastructure in place, amazes me.  Just one small thing going wrong in one place, and you have stranded astronauts who will either suffocate, dehydrate or starve.

[Fjolnirsson]

I believe we will have manned missions to Mars, and beyond, but I do not believe NASA will be the one doing it. Either private parties or the Chinese will move forward to where our space program should have gone after the moon landings.

[RocketMan]

In my opinion, NASA will not be sending manned missions to Mars.  We lack the political will to do so, now.  After Obama is in the White House, any remaining will for missions of significant scope will completely evaporate.  I have serious doubts that NASA will even complete the Shuttle replacement project.
As Fjolnirsson said, it will be China, maybe India, or even remotely, Japan.  Private parties are also a possibility.

[MicroBalrog]

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

[MechAg94]

The air is thinner on Mars so you likely won't get the lift from a lifting body design landing horizontally.  Might be more difficult.

Did any of you see the news about India's Moon probe launch?  Finally someone can confirm that our flag is actually there!

[Regolith]

One of the ideas I've seen floated is to send unmanned craft ahead to prepare the landing site/base of operations.  Said unmanned craft would be carrying gear, machinery and possibly habitats that they wouldn't have room for on the manned craft.

In addition, the supplies sent ahead may either have extra fuel, or machines designed to create fuel using resources found on Mars.  For instance, if they could find a good sized water ice deposit, it could be used to provide liquid hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuel, as well as breathable air for the crew.

[RevDisk]

 

I always wondered why it's been set in stone that a manned trip to Mars had to be two ways.  It'd be infinitely easier for a one way trip.  Plenty of people would volunteer, even knowing it was a certain death.  I know, I know, it'd never be politically acceptable.
 

[seeker_two]

I always wondered why it's been set in stone that a manned trip to Mars had to be two ways.  It'd be infinitely easier for a one way trip.  Plenty of people would volunteer, even knowing it was a certain death.  I know, I know, it'd never be politically acceptable.
 

I'll support it if you're volunteering.... 

[nobody's_hero]

I think what we need is a really good crossbow with a really long rope attached to the arrow. We aim it at Mars, fire, and presto, instant zip line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r0pROzHY5M

[Gewehr98]

I always wondered why it's been set in stone that a manned trip to Mars had to be two ways.  It'd be infinitely easier for a one way trip.  Plenty of people would volunteer, even knowing it was a certain death.  I know, I know, it'd never be politically acceptable.

Well, heck.

Since you're going down that road, how about a crew that's twice as large as needs to be - with only enough food on board for the trip there...

"Dibs on the white meat!" 

[AJ Dual]

Even with Mars' thin atmosphere you can aerobrake and that saves a lot of fuel, or allows for much greater tonnage to be sent there. This gives you enough savings to send a direct launch SSTO crew return/Mars liftoff vehicle.

Also, they'd probably send an unmanned return lander ahead that would be fully fueled on a high-efficiency orbit a year or so ahead, that would aerobrake, then land and wait for the crew to come use it to return.

There's lots of potential strategies and the math/fuel/gravity equations have been worked to death since the 60's.

If carbon nanotube materials science keeps advancing, we can build a space elevator much sooner than many predict, and if that's the case, we can play "Crack the whip" at the end of it and fling payloads anywhere in the Solar System for next to nothing, only needing return fuel, especially any destination where aerobraking is possible.

[RevDisk]

I'll support it if you're volunteering.... 

To be the first person to set foot on Mars?   In a heart beat. 

I believe that in the long run, that is, thousands of years, not this or that decade... humanity has two choices.  The stars, or extinction. 

[GigaBuist]

I saw somebody else write on the "one way trip" thing today too.  I forget who, but the basic idea was that it's not unheard of.  We've done it before.  Plenty of Europeans came to America without any plans or chance of returning to Europe.

The thing that gets me, is that we need a reason for folks to want to stay on Mars.  Living in a landed aircraft and getting food and water drops from NASA isn't going to cut it, IMHO.

What if we could get some agriculture going there?  Think 'Genesis Torpedo' from Star Trek type of stuff, but instead of magically transforming a whole planet we drop a greenhouse off there.  There's probably some heat issues, but the soil, last I saw, was similar enough to Earth's soil that we could get something growing there.

So, presuming the heat issue can be solved, we start plunking greenhouses down up there and grow ferns, dune grass, etc.  Simple plants that are ancient on earth. Maybe algae? Maybe we could get them kicking out enough oxygen to sustain 5-10 people. 

Drop some big solar panels off to power the O2 collection system, maybe batteries to store energy when it goes dark and we need some heat in the greenhouse.

Watch how the ferns and grasses grow, see what works and what doesn't.  Maybe we can learn something from them and genetically modify a corn crop to grow up there, or some other food source.

If we get a space elevator going it makes it much easier to drop off "care packages" to folks living there. Saturate the area with these before we drop off any humans just to be safe.

I dunno.  Just rambling.  I was thinking about this around a month ago and I grew up in a family that ran (and runs) greenhouses so that was my natural solution to transforming Mars.

[Jim147]

Before I start ranting let me say the greenhouse idea is a good start.
If you could get them to land with an automated startup system.

The problem with going to Mars is the want to.

We have so many better or worse things to spend our money on.
America seems to have a majority of greedy lazy people.
Global warming has been discussed for years but $4.00 a gallon
gas brought alternate energy and energy dependence right
to the front of the nations mind.

We had a drive to go to the moon. Unless it is proven that the earth
will die if we don't inhabit Mars I can't see it in the budget.

The private sector may be able to do it but they will have to
make a lot of money off satellite launches and space tourism
before a serious mars mission would be looked at.

There's gold and diamonds on Mars.(That will get them going)

[MillCreek]

To be the first person to set foot on Mars?   In a heart beat. 

I believe that in the long run, that is, thousands of years, not this or that decade... humanity has two choices.  The stars, or extinction. 

+1 to RevDisk

[MicroBalrog]

I'll support it if you're volunteering.... 

If there's some greenhouse structure or something to make the 'colony' viable long-term without food supplies from home, I'd go.

But then you do realize the Mars colony could not be controlled from Earth?

[GigaBuist]

But then you do realize the Mars colony could not be controlled from Earth?

Oh, wouldn't be long 'fore somebody tried forming up an Alliance between the two planets governments.

*reaches for his brown coat*

[Dntsycnt]

Space elevator.

[seeker_two]

Space elevator.

...and think of the music that'll be playing the whole time....

[DustinD]

The orbit of the ISS makes it a bad place to stop. It would not be necessary as most current plans involve sending the cargo up first in an Ares V , and then the crew up in an Ares I when it is time to go.

But a small landing craft can't take off and break Martian orbit like the Apollo lander could on the moon.

The current plan for any return mission that I have seen involves using a nuclear reactor to turn CO2 and H2 into methane (CH4) and oxygen to power the return craft. The craft gets sent ahead of time and the mission does not leave the ground on Earth if this craft does not successfully fuel itself on Mars. This plan was invented(I think) and popularised by Robbert Zubrin who wrote the book "The Case for Mars" and has been adopted by everyone else since then. His book is available for next to nothing used from amazon.com It is a bit optimistic about the amount of mass needed, a little to "my way is the only right way," but it is still a decent read and pretty educational if do not know much about the engineering of space hardware and missions already. It also has some good information about the risks (or lack there of) and why we should go to Mars instead of the Moon or other places.

Current return craft all seem to be two stage to orbit, mostly methane and oxygen, with a few that propose slightly heavier hydrocarbons and oxygen.

You can get water on Mars through several ways. The most popular ways are using microwaves or heat to extract it from soil that is scooped up into robotic machines.

Also keep in mind that if you do not want to spend almost all of your time floating in space, and do a Venus fly by, you are going to spend a minimum of about 550 days on Mars before the next launch window opens up. In my opinion it would be best to just plan on staying and skip the heavy, expensive, six months in space return craft all together. If it was wanted you could add one later once you had power, water, oxygen, methane, and food production on Mars for a lot less cost. The pre fuelled return craft needs its own reactor and eight tons of seed hydrogen for a four person return if sent ahead of time.

I would suggest reading about the plans at www.marshome.com in their document library, and maybe reading the www.newmars.com forums for more information.