UK team designs human mission to Mars

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22952441

by stettix • 13 years ago

23 15 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

harrytuttle2• 13 years ago

I think we're proposing these Mars missions too soon. We need to concentrate on producing propulsion systems and shielding systems that get us there and back fast and safely first.

I'm not talking about some starship enterprise, but something a little meatier than a glorified coke can.

vitno• 13 years ago

Both of those are solved problems, and actually have been for quite a while.

You should check out the Mars Direct plan proposed by Robert Zubrin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

harrytuttle2• 13 years ago

Thanks and as usual, canned by Obama.

Perhaps the private sector can take this one on?

homeomorphic• 13 years ago

A nice exhibition of Mars Direct can be seen in the documentary The Mars Underground [1]. There's also Zubrin's book [2].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDWvsdEYSqg (I don't know the copyright status of this, but it's been on YouTube for well over a year with many views).

[2] Robert Zubrin. The Case for Mars.

znowi• 13 years ago

That's nice, but my money is on Elon Musk :)

eksith• 13 years ago

Is it just me, or is he spreading himself awfully thin these days? I mean, I don't know him personally so it's entirely possible this is all within his capability, but "Loop transport", "LEO Spaceship", Tesla and now Mars too?

TeMPOraL• 13 years ago

LEO spaceship and Mars are on the same development track (humans as interplanetary species / retirement on Mars is the final destination, rockets and LEO spaceship are first steps on the track). Also it's nice how he managed to make his three companies support each other by flowing tech and cash between them (e.g. Tesla using SolarCity tech for charging).

VladRussian2• 13 years ago

In my view the first version of the Loop (which seems to be something like electromagnetically driven 3-4 winged needle (something like StarWars X-wing starfighter without engines) in a pipe - you need to go supersonic to outrun your sound (for comfort), this is your Concord, and shock wave from the needle will be hitting the wall right in front of where the "wing" ends would be touching the wall, so one can have correctly designed wingtips doing "shock-waveriding" near the wall, instead of touching it, this is your "airhockey") is for ground transport while it will allow to develop/refine/test the next version of the Loop which will be used as the first stage accelerator for space launches

bobdvb• 13 years ago

My view is that if we are going to have a Mars manned mission it should be one-way. Send some resources to the planet, automated mechanisms to build out some basic infrastructure (cabins, greenhouses, barricades, etc). Then once things are in place, and a self-sustaining environment can be built find some people willing to spend the rest of their lives there, perhaps older people but families wouldn't be impossible. Think of a pioneer spirit, there would be no end of people willing to put their name down for a one way trip!

The main reason I say one way? Given it is an 21 month minimum round trip or even five years, the health (mostly bone density) issues are astounding. So, let the people decide to be the first Martian colonists and let it be a one way trip. If the preparation package was sufficient I know I would like to put my name down but I suspect that my wife wouldn't, so that vetoes me, but I know I am not alone.

Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge. But lets remember that these trips aren't without risk, so lets say that the risk is better managed if they just stay on Mars.

deletes• 13 years ago

Bone density is a solved problem. Daily usage of exercise machines for about 1-2 hours keeps the same density; tested on ISS astronauts.

I agree that one-way trip is the best, because of difficulty to acquire fuel.

Udo• 13 years ago

I think the appeal of making Mars trips one-way comes from the romanticization of the early American settlements and not primarily from technical concerns. From a technical perspective, having return capabilities adds complication in the short run, but it also solves a lot of problems (technical, administrative, logistical, and psychological).

Total colony failure is a real danger for Mars colonization, as it was for historical settlers. If our first Mars colony is a total loss, you can bet there won't be another one. If Martian settlers had space faring capabilities they could avert this scenario and potentially even return to Earth if things got out of control.

Establishing back-and-forth routes, both slow robotic ones, as well as the occasional human shuttle, means Mars will be a real extension of Earth instead of a stagnant, extreme colony. It means there will be pressure for technological advancement in this area which wouldn't be necessary if we had just a big one-way rocket. Without this pressure, spaceship design and propulsion won't get a significant boost.

If we choose to put this one-way barrier up, let's not kid ourselves, it will be because it's dramatic and romantic. In the short term, this decision will put human lives in danger. It will stifle innovation by willfully ignoring a big tech application. Over the long term, if the colony survives, it will lead to a technologically superior Mars that has no meaningful ties to Earth - and with that, potentially, war.

Having a two-way system in place will most likely finally commoditize space travel and in one fell swoop will eliminate all the problems I talked about.

Perhaps it is the idea of people dying in space and the publicity from that that worries those in charge.

Humans will die "in space" anyway. If we choose to venture out into the solar system, people are going to die out there. As I said, a one-way transport system combined with a loss of the first colony will result in a lot of deaths and it will result in a total cancellation of any further colonization efforts.

Making transports one-way is a choice, not a necessity. I would argue it's an illogical one with very impractical consequences.

jakeybob• 13 years ago

They say "Every part of this mission scenario has been demonstrated one way or the other" but I'm struggling to think of a proper artificial gravity demonstration. Are there any?

Gemini 11 had some success with a similar scheme involving tethering themselves to their Aegena craft and spinning up. However this was far from straightforward and only created tiny amounts (Wikipedia says 0.00015g) of artificial acceleration.

In order to get 1g from a 50m tether it would have to spin at a little over 4rpm, which seems like quite a lot for such a big thing. Also the difference in acceleration between an astronaut's head and feet would be something like 0.3 m/s/s, which hasn't (AFAIK) been tested.

The Gemini experiment was amazing (especially given it was some way down the list of mission objectives) but I don't think it qualifies as a full demonstration of the technique. I know this project is not intended to be a finished design, but they give the impression that artificial gravity generation is a solved problem.

elnate• 13 years ago

Exactly. With a diameter of 4m on this, even if they could get 1g at the edge, would still leave the astronauts heads at almost 0g. Makes me wonder what kind of scientists worked on this.

Bosence• 13 years ago

The British Interplanetary Society did something similar a few years back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Boreas

UK team designs human mission to Mars

Related Stories