Getting Man on Mars will need more than just rhetoric.

Spacedaily.com, Marsdaily.com ^ | Jan 10, 2004 | Unknown, PARIS (AFP)

[tricky_k_1972]

Getting Man on Mars will need more than just rhetoric

PARIS (AFP) Jan 10, 2004

If George W. Bush, in an announcement likely to be made next Wednesday, intends to put an American on Mars, the endeavour will require commitment that endures way beyond his presidency, a gamble on technology and buckets of dollars.

These factors will determine if the expected plan will enjoy the same glory as John F. Kennedy's 1961 pledge to place an American on the Moon by 1970 -- or whether history will dismiss it as a political flourish in an election year.

Sources in the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) say the Bush scheme entails scrapping the ageing shuttle fleet by the end of this decade, pulling back from the International Space Station (ISS) a few years later and ploughing resources into lunar and then interplanetary manned missions.

Trips to the Moon, where Man last set foot more than 31 years ago, would resume around 2015, providing the experience and expertise for a later mission to Mars, according to these sources.

The phaseout of the discredited shuttles and cash-burning ISS will cause many scientists to heave sighs of relief.

Many rubbish these projects as rotations around Earth's back yard that do almost nothing to advance knowledge when compared to the low-cost unmanned missions such as the Mars rover Spirit.

Sending humans to Mars will test technical, psychological and financial resources to the limit.

"Going to the Moon is one thing, you can take them there in one or two days, but going to Mars is quite a different story," Hans Rickman, general secretary of the Paris-based International Astronomical Union (IAU), said.

Apollo 17 made a there-and-back mission to the Moon from December 7-19 1972.

But a voyage to the Red Planet, depending on the relative orbital positions of Earth and Mars, would take at least six months there and six months back with today's slow chemical rockets.

Factor in time spent on the planet's surface -- a hostile environment with an arid, rocky landscape, blood-freezing temperatures and a suffocating atmosphere of carbon dioxide -- and the trek would probably take some two years in all, imposing monstrous strains on the crew.

A spaceship to Mars would have to be roomy, shielded from cosmic radiation and collision with space rocks, and supplied with tonnes of food, water, oxygen and fuel.

There would have to be enough for the outward and return trips and the time spent on Mars itself, if no substitute can be found, grown or manufactured on the planet.

"Electric nuclear propulsion will be the key to going to Mars," said Richard Heidmann, a rocket motor engineer who is head of the French branch of the Mars Society, referring to the revolutionary concept of a fast-thrust ion engine.

All these amount to a bill with many zeroes on the bottom line.

The last time an American president made a Kennedyesque stab at setting foot on the Red Planet was in 1989.

And the dreamer was Bush's own father, who also saw a lunar stepping stone to Mars. The vision was put on hold after experts put the tab at between 400 and 500 billion dollars.

But the bill may not have to be that high, say others.

According to a 1997 NASA estimate, a Martian trip would cost between 30 and 40 billion dollars, about half of which would have to be spent on rocket boosters to get material into low orbit around Earth, and then to send the assembled ship zooming towards the Red Planet.

Dick Taylor, secretary of the British Interplanetary Society, said the cost of the heavy lifting of payloads could be slashed by using the Moon's low gravity.

Robots could build a lunar factory, extracting minerals and helium from moon rocks to manufacture propulsion systems, accommodation modules and fuel for long-term missions.

[discostu]

Yes a new ice age does matter, considering we're in the longest temperate time on this planet EVER by a factor of 10% the next ice age is rather overdue. It's hard to farm through a glacier.

Bad spending in stupid places is not a good reason not to make good spending in smart places. Space is the single most important place to spend money.

What an incredibly insulting way to prove your shortsighted ignorance. It matter for EVERYONE, your attitude of balance the budget first (even though most governments run in deficit most of the time and it's never been shown to have any detrimental effect at all) if allowed to rule would doom all mankind. Sad and stupid thinking, selling down the future for a balance sheet.

Unmanned vessel don't count. We used to get people to the moon, now thanks to budget worshipping dipsticks holding our nation back we haven't gotten a person out of LEO, our space technology has completely stagnated thanks to your kind of thinking.

That's not a pessimistic view, it's a REAL view. Budget consciousness is what's held us in check. It made us settle on the shuttle which was the least ambitious of the three option put in front of Nixon 30 years ago, and it's what kept us not looking past the shuttle for the entire time. Reality doesn't reward cowardice and worshipping the balance sheet over space exploration is the ultimate form of cowardice.

There are quite a few people like that around here. And their bad for the country and mankind. They must be out numbered and overruled. What you fail to mention is that spending money in space CAN divert the asteroid, and comment otherwise are a sad lie told to mulify the cowards trying to hold back progress. The cowards must be removed from authority.

[HitmanLV]

You are right - don't sell dreams to people who do not dream, or at least, those people who are always having nightmares! GREAT OBSERVATION!

[dr_who_2]

Space is the single most important place to spend money.

Sorry, pal, but you're nuts.

[discostu]

No, you just lack all vision. No other place to spend money matters in the least if we can't survive. Name one thing that matters after the planet is no longer inhabitable. You can't. There isn't one.

[singsong]

That's ok... you stay here and I'll go.

No problem. It'll cost you though. Search the net for the best price.

[singsong]

No, you just lack all vision. No other place to spend money matters in the least if we can't survive.

Huh? You lack a lot more. If we can't survive here, we will not survive anywhere else. Or do you think radiation induced mutations are going to make us better? Before getting starry eyes, think how to get a mixed gender crew in permanent low Earth orbit. But NO, the plan is TO SCRAP THAT!

[tricky_k_1972]

The Green Hills of Earth

by Robert A. Heinlein

Let the sweet fresh breezes heal me As they rove around the girth Of our lovely mother planet Of the cool, green hills of Earth.

We rot in the moulds of Venus, We retch at her tainted breath. Foul are her flooded jungles, Crawling with unclean death.

[ --- the harsh bright soil of Luna ---

--- Saturn's rainbow rings ---

--- the frozen night of Titan --- ]

We've tried each spinning space mote And reckoned its true worth: Take us back again to the homes of men On the cool, green hills of Earth.

The arching sky is calling Spacemen back to their trade. ALL HANDS! STAND BY! FREE FALLING! And the lights below us fade.

Out ride the sons of Terra, Far drives the thundering jet, Up leaps a race of Earthmen, Out, far, and onward yet ---

We pray for one last landing On the globe that gave us birth; Let us rest our eyes on the friendly skies And the cool, green hills of Earth.

[RAWGUY]

NASA can wax eloquent about all the aerospace and engineering companies they keep in business and their invention of velco

Velcro? NASA? NASA didn't invent velcro. It was some old guy who got to looking at the way the cockleburs stuck to his dog's fur.

This is good and correct too...The man's name is George De Mestral. He is a Swiss inventor and got the idea as you said and this was in the early 1940's. He recieved backing and formed a company called VELCRO SA in 1952 and patented the velcro product and process. This was a few years before we had a NASA, as I recall.

[medscribe]

And it is the limited visioners like yourself who prove my point. Progress is not made by "playing it safe." Progress is made with risks, daring, and yes, failure. You may be satisfied with the status quo and think that our science is "good enough," but I beg to differ. Mankind's destiny is not limited to this planet, it is in the heavens and the stars.

As for the Apollo program, you remember Apollo 1? Three dead astronauts on the pad. It took NASA 2 years to recover, but they did recover and went on toward the Moon. And then there was Apollo 13....

[dr_who_2]

And it is the limited visioners like yourself who prove my point.

As a charter member of the Royal Society of Limited Visioners, I make it a habit to prove my own points and no one else's.

Progress is not made by "playing it safe." Progress is made with risks, daring, and yes, failure.

Progress is not made by press ceremonies, press conferences, stirring speeches, light shows. Progress is made quiety and incrementally by people who develop themselves and put their own resources to some worthy task, regardless of whether that task is boring to some or fantastic to many. And then there are the cranks who spend their days parroting the same banal NASA PR gobbledygook on web forums and hoping that other people's money can be used to provide them with some really smashing live television entertainment some ten or twenty years down the road (after you're old, tired, and possibly dead). That's the guy who will benefit the most of an astronomically expensive Mars mission, aside from rocks, pretty pictures of more "magnificient desolation", some memorable recordings of flubbed lines, and more fascinating data about rocks. If you're still around by then you peruse all that rock data thoroughly so that we get our money's worth.

Now, what's this about risk? No risk for me, just less money in my retirement account, assuming I can save at all. Risk for the astronauts? Certainly, but many would still envy them. Risk for the country? Not really. Failure or success, it's just another page in history. Cost to benefit is the issue. If it was cheap, they ought to build a theme park on Mars that everybody could visit.

You may be satisfied with the status quo and think that our science is "good enough," but I beg to differ. Mankind's destiny is not limited to this planet, it is in the heavens and the stars.

You don't need to send people into space to do real science. The science is in the geology of Mars, which is already being investigated with the help of light, relatively inexpensive robots for the purpose of pure research. As for mankind's destiny, I have no better insight into that than you pretend to have, but I know that putting four or five lucky (or possibly bored and lonely) people onto Mars isn't "conquering outer space" even in a symbolic sense. If more people turn off the television and worry about their own destiny for a change, then mankind will do a lot better whereever in the universe they end up.

As for the Apollo program, you remember Apollo 1? Three dead astronauts on the pad. It took NASA 2 years to recover, but they did recover and went on toward the Moon. And then there was Apollo 13....

You forgot Gemini plus all those Apollos between 1 and 13. I have all the National Geographic back issues. Whoo hoo!

[bonesmccoy]

"My solution to the long flight to mars? Have "supply stations" rocketed out to Mars at intervals so that the crew of teh Mars ship can dock and take on cargo as they approach Mars and return to Earth. This allows for a small ship that is easier to build. "

Rendezvous and Docking with a spacecraft moving between Earth and Mars is not easy. The orbit of the vehicle is very challenging to time because Earth and Mars are at different orbital planes. Your suggestion is even more difficult because you also have to account for the different trajectories of the two spacecraft. While not impossible, I would argue that far safer plans are to look at Robert Zubrin's concept of landing spacecraft supply vessels on mars or other planetary destinations prior to launch of the crew. Essentially, by using remote sensing technologies, you have the capability to check out the crew return vehicles and the Mars/Lunar base vehicles prior to launching the manned crew. This means the lead time is about two years for the flight and two years to make the vehicles. That is great because it correlates to a four year Presidential term. I believe that if the White House wanted to, you could target Mars this year and land them by the end of his second term.

[bonesmccoy]

One first class ticket to Hawaii = $800

One rocket trip to ISS = $ 20 million

First person on Mars = priceless.

Mastercard- for those out of this world charges.

[Destro]

It is possible-but probably difficult to have the stations pre placed in the mars ships tradjectory. The supply stations have to have the ability to alter course for corrections etc. Or my other solution would be to have multiple launches at the same time a fleet of supply vessels flying along side.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Sorry, but I just have to butt into this discussion. Since the last Apollo mission, I have thought on and off about the preparations it would take for the human race to go to Mars. I thought surely that we would be going there a few years after Apollo, after the ships and the technology had been redesigned to allow the long trip. And now, in 2004, after 34 years, we're finally talking seriously about doing it.

Its late, criminally late, but better late than never. And the same excitement I had as a kid is starting to return.

That's all I had to interject.

[Destro]

The sad truth is that we did not go into deep space because Space had nothing to offer our govmt after the end of the space race.

We have failed to make space travel cheaper than it was. I don't know what technology exists to make space exploration cheaper. To be honest, if going to space means I have to pay more taxes-then I am against it.

Now if we can go to Mars/Moon on the current budget by cutting other programs (funding for all the arts, failed Pentagon pork programs like crusader and osprey, etc) then I am for diverting said funds to the space program.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Now if we can go to Mars/Moon on the current budget by cutting other programs (funding for all the arts, failed Pentagon pork programs like crusader and osprey, etc) then I am for diverting said funds to the space program.

Government funding is fine, but who will be the British East India Tea Co. of the 21st Century? Let them plunk down half then cede to them all the Helium 3 they can haul off the Moon.

[bonesmccoy]

Destro,

Launching a fleet (say 3) ships simultaneously would be more than our nation has ever done at KSC. The most KSC's workers have been able to simultaneously process are some of the 1980's STS missions pre-Challenger.

Since then, I don't believe there have ever been two birds on the pads at 39 simultaneously. Snopercod would probably know better, but I really doubt that we could pull off three simultaneous launches (or even three launches in the same week).

[Destro]

Launches???? You mean we can't have support ships in orbit waiting for the go ahead? Why did you think all ships had to be launched at the same time?

In fact I would think multiple ships would aid in safety. If an Apollo 13 like incident were to happen you would simply tranfer to another vessel. In fact now that I think of it a multi ship fleet - one manned the rest automated flyimg to mars from earth orbit at the same time is a better idea than having rendezvous with pre placed supply ships. You can carry more supplies and up chances for survival.

[bonesmccoy]

You could conceivably park the vehicles in orbit for some period of time, but what is the difference between parking them in Earth orbit versus starting them on their mission earlier than the crewed vehicle?

If the answer is that you are making multiple crew modules and sending them empty to the destination zone, then I think you're not very confident in the crew module design.

[goldstategop]

My view is privatize the final frontier and turn the project over to the aerospace industry. They can do it cheaper and faster than NASA and in record time too. Its the only way to land humans on Mars in our lifetime.