Water found on Mars

[moot]

Oops, sorry.

[Chalenge]

Moot I was replying specifically to Challenges posts. He says we can't get to mars but all these other things are somehow possible through robotics that we can't seem to get right on mars missions.

What I said was I disagree on the priority of missions. I never said we cant get to Mars.

[Saxman]

Chalenge,

The concentration of free hydrogen in space is so minuscule that "scooping up" fuel as you go is beyond impractical. You couldn't pick up enough to power a light bulb for any appreciable length of time.

[ROX]

Rox you have to use specifics, not just "the technology to get a big enough solid rocket booster there on the short haul, and get the crew home on either the long or short hauls just isn't there yet."  What's "big enough" and "short"?

The DeltaIV-H can put 17,600 lbs into Trans Mars Injection, or 10,000 to the surface, time of flight 6 months.  That's one DIVH.  Shoot a few payloads into LEO and you can assemble a pretty good payload to Mars. You can just as well send a few cargo loads on their own the slowpoke way, ahead of time. Zubrin probably covered these possibilities in depth.
The AresV (or VI or whatever they end up settling on) will be even bigger.

The ISS to Mars?  You've been drinking the bad reporting koolaid..

Mav,
 I'm not sure what you're pointing out. First you say all of that is unfeasible, then you say we should do it (moon>mars, rocks asap).. Well yeah, we should do it and if the tech isn't there, we'll make it.  I doubt it's as revolutionary as you make it sound.  I haven't read about those specificaly, but I'm pretty sure it's simpler to get to freespace rocks than mars.  I'm pretty sure the developments needed for mining are sluggish so far, only because of a lack of funding.  I doubt it's anywhere as opaque as getting fusion to work profitably.
I don't think there's any reason to pit the two against each other.

Moot:  (and it sure is nice to have a civil, reasonable exchange with you, and I appreciate it, I'm not joking, thank you).


Maybe it's the mother-language difference...please let me explain.  Please bear with me.

The United States does not currently have a rocket system that is big enough to carry a crew of 2 or 3 to Mars via the "short route" and come back via the "long route" if necessary.  There are only certain times of the year where a take off time scheduled to arrive at the shortest possible route.  It still takes a good 6 months to get there on the shortest route possible and 9 to 10 months on the longer route.  The Ares V/VI series wouldn't be adequite either.  The technology I refer to does not exist yet or we'd be there already.

By the time it takes a spacecraft (by current our current technology standpoint = liquid fueled) to get to Mars via the shortest possible route (distance) due to the different orbits that the Earth and Mars have, coming home by the exact same short route may not be possible.  Earth and Mars have orbits that are more egg shaped at times than perfect circles around the Sun.  You also need to time your take off and return to avoid getting anywhere near the Sun.

I'm talking scientific logistics here:

1)  Fuel to get to Mars via the shortest possible route
2)  Enough area onboard to carry enough water or a water/urine filtration system to get them there & back
3)  Enough area onboard to carry enough food or food producing systems to get them there and back
4)  Enough fuel and a big enough spacecraft to carry it to take them home via the shortest route possible.

What you mention above, shooting off "slow poke" supplies in advance in Low Earth Orbit might be a good idea. Why not just use the ISS?  It's not colmpleted yet but that is one of the ISS objectives.  The ISS is a good start as a relay station for a Mars expedition.

Saturn V technology depended on the fact that the mother-vehicle is able to maintain it's E while orbiting the planet while the men and exploration vehicle are on the planet's surface.  Once the men and exploration craft have rendezvoused with the mother-vessel, they would have to do a controlled burn for the return at precise time to return to Earth.  For Mars you's have to do that and then return to earth.  With solid/liquid fuel technology we're talinking one HUGE honkin' arsed sized mother-vehicle.

I never said ISS to Mars...and no one but a moron would.  The ISS is currently being built in stages to provide a long-term Earth orbiting space station that would essentially be a gigantic scientific SkyLab.  It was/is never intended to be a transplanetary space vehicle, it was originally intended to be a very large modular space science laboratory and have docking facilities for both manned and (future) drone spacecraft.  It has been, however, considered a possible future relay station for space exploration vehicles, i.e.: blast off from Earth---go to the ISS--get into pre-assembled craft from there and then depart there for other planets.

The problem still exists for the big four: Oxygen, water, food, and fuel.  

It has been often debated by scientists if a solid/liquid fueled rocket/space shuttle could dock with thei ISS, deliver it's crew and supplies, and then depart for mars in a pre-assembled--pre-supplied space vehicle that was NUCLEAR powered...eliminating the need for liquid fueled engines and speeding up the travel time over liquid fueled rockets.  Also cutting down substancially on the amount of water, oxygen and fuel a common liquid fueled rocket would require.  

Their working on the problem now.  A nuclear powered spacecraft is, so far, a "pipe dream".  America's best scientific minds are on the soloution...and yes, we are being very conservative about it.

Anyone who says that space aliens came to earth and spilled their guts on all their technological secrets to "secret US services" is more than a tad goofy.  If they had, we'd already have a base on Mars.  


Thank you for your time.








ROX

[dkff49]

Hey rox I agree with you 100% here I will just add something before someone brings up some of the past satellite missions to the outer planets including the one going to Pluto (still a planet in my book different subject though).

1 yes there are nuclear powered spacecraft out there. the nuclear power is for electrical power only not for propelling the space vehicle. those reactors are only for producing the electrical power necessary to run the electronics on-board and mostly are only on the satellites going beyond the asteroid belt due to solar power is very weak beyond that point.

I would also like to add one more problem with manned spaceflight to Mars. The physical toll on the human body is extreme after just a few months in space. This is in part due to the fact that there is no gravity and our bodies are designed for life in a higher gravity enviroment. The physical toll would be so bad that it has been predicted by many that it would take up to a few months on Mars before the astronauts would be strong enough to venture outside the lading vehicle.

Just a few additions to what Rox stated.

 

edit: forgot to mention that they are still working technologies to avoid the physical draining of the astronauts and are still having trouble answering finding an answer. It seems that exercise programs do seem to help but do not buy enough time for the trip to Mars. I remember seeing reports of a certain Russian you spent record setting time in space and excerised most of the time he spent awake and it still was not enough for him to walk away from the return craft on his own power. It seems that we work our bodies harder than we think here on Earth.

[trax1]

I would also like to add one more problem with manned spaceflight to Mars. The physical toll on the human body is extreme after just a few months in space. This is in part due to the fact that there is no gravity and our bodies are designed for life in a higher gravity enviroment. The physical toll would be so bad that it has been predicted by many that it would take up to a few months on Mars before the astronauts would be strong enough to venture outside the lading vehicle.

Just a few additions to what Rox stated.

 

edit: forgot to mention that they are still working technologies to avoid the physical draining of the astronauts and are still having trouble answering finding an answer. It seems that exercise programs do seem to help but do not buy enough time for the trip to Mars. I remember seeing reports of a certain Russian you spent record setting time in space and excerised most of the time he spent awake and it still was not enough for him to walk away from the return craft on his own power. It seems that we work our bodies harder than we think here on Earth.

Your right on the physical toll it takes on the human body, and they are developing things to counter act these effects, I was watching a show about this device NASA has come up with, it's a table that you lay down on and it rotates at a speed that will simulate the Earths gravity on the body, they said that an astronaut would need only use it 1 hour a day. 

Another option to counter act these effects is to rotate the spacecraft, this rotation of the spacecraft simulates gravity, this would seem like the best solution to the problem.

[dkff49]

Your right on the physical toll it takes on the human body, and they are developing things to counter act these effects, I was watching a show about this device NASA has come up with, it's a table that you lay down on and it rotates at a speed that will simulate the Earths gravity on the body, they said that an astronaut would need only use it 1 hour a day. 

Another option to counter act these effects is to rotate the spacecraft, this rotation of the spacecraft simulates gravity, this would seem like the best solution to the problem.

you are right about some of the things they are developing however I saw that program as well it is about a year old I think. I watch that stuff alot due to the fact that I have alot of downtime at work and watch way too much tv.

If I remember correctly though they were hoping for an hour a day to slow it enough to make the astronauts strong enough to be able to do some work but would still take time to get up to 100%. But I find it unlikely that a person would only need an hour a day to maintain the same amount of muscle and bone mass that an entire day on Earth does. I know what they claimed that they were hopeful for and I know they are well educated more so than myself but they also are aware that things don't normally work out the way they would like and no way to say it is going to work until they get that contraption into space and use it long term. I will believe that it works at that point.

The spinning spaceship is also an idea but in order to get the momentum up enough and keep it remotely comfortable for the astronauts without causing motion sickness or movement problems the craft would most likely need to be extremely large. Creating yet another problem. none of the solutions are easy or simple if it wasa we would have already been there and probably have a permanent colony.

Just saying that sometime when they mean they are hopeful that something will work it sounds like it already does, especially when on TV. By the way I believe they also mentioned in that program that they were messing around with drugs to assist with the problem. That reminds me I saw on Yahoo news someone has developed an excercise pill that would help couch potatoes to to be less obese and help give more muscle mass. Iit has worked on mice so far, of course how did they get the mice to sit still long enough to watch TV. Maybe there is some hope there as well.

Trax1 I was thinking of that program as I typed the post that you quoted from me. I can't wait to see what solutions they come up with. Probably will be a combination of things they are working on now and some ideas not yet thought of. Hope we get to see it and it does not take longer than the expect.

edit: her is a link to the article about the exercise pill.

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AojDB1mo5Nbk2V_k1Q9sdJQazJV4/SIG=11rjequlo/**http%3A//health.yahoo.com/news/ap/sci_exercise_pill.html

[Chalenge]

Chalenge,

The concentration of free hydrogen in space is so minuscule that "scooping up" fuel as you go is beyond impractical. You couldn't pick up enough to power a light bulb for any appreciable length of time.

In interstellar space that is correct. The density of hydrogen particles is higher within a solar system but the problem in using the bussard engine approach ( http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/spacecraft/bussardramjet/bussard.html )
is the extreme velocity required to make it work. I think this is what you are picturing.

The same approach the guys at MIT are using to make storing energy from solar power possible will also help in harnessing the solar wind and allow a mix of ion drive and solar sailing. Currently we use solar sails to adjust for angular momentum only. Ion engines work by emitting particles at speeds of 68,000 mph. A hybrid version would use both for acceleration and deceleration and onboard fuel (stored hydrogen) for major course adjustments and approaches refilling its tanks while in transit.

ion drive: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/deepspace_propulsion_000816.html

[moot]

Anyone who watched the last Phoenix briefing probably noticed how much more fidgety and nervous at least two of the crew were, even by professional nerd standards. Apparently they found something very interesting and will be waiting at least two weeks to assess the data before releasing their interpretation. The team in charge of the instrument that made the discovery were kept out of the press briefing to avoid their saying anything they might regret..
They went straight to calling the white house advisor about it.

So much for "finding nothing".

[gwano]

The shame is that NASA will continue to spend every resource (men & money) on Mars instead of what it should be doing. I cant wait until private industries begin to do profit driven missions to space and we reap many many more benefits than NASA will ever give us. Making Mars suitable for humans will take 10,000 years.

agreed.
why not spend that money on alternative energy, or oil shale processing or trying to make our planet more livable for us or birth control education for the masses so we dont use up our remaining natural resources because we're to stupid to realize that our ever increasing population is the cause to all of our current major global problems.
We need global leaders tough enough to put global population growth in a reversing trend.

I cant think of a single global issue that would not benefit from that in the long term,
other than lining the pockets of wealthy businessmen profiting at the expense of our planet.

[SOB]

Terraforming mars would cost alot. I belive the pricetag for level one terraforming is 50.000 metal and 100.000 deuteriuim units. But thats not all. You must have 1000 units of energy from either solar sats, fusion reactors or solar plants. To get those you need robotic factories, shipyards and mines.

Its a massive project 

LOL, and then some a-hole is bound to come and blast your satellites to smithereens

[trax1]

Anyone who watched the last Phoenix briefing probably noticed how much more fidgety and nervous at least two of the crew were, even by professional nerd standards. Apparently they found something very interesting and will be waiting at least two weeks to assess the data before releasing their interpretation. The team in charge of the instrument that made the discovery were kept out of the press briefing to avoid their saying anything they might regret..
They went straight to calling the white house advisor about it.

So much for "finding nothing".

So are you thinking that Phoenix found the evidence of organic compounds in the samples it's taken?  That would be the biggest discovery in human history if that is the case, that life happened twice in 1 solar system, then life is common place in the Universe.  If you have a link to the video of this briefing I'd like to see it.

[Chalenge]

The briefing said 'No Organics' but they did mention salts. It could be nothing or they may have found some interesting acids in the clay samples. I didnt see the breifing live. Maybe they were just nervous about talking to the White House or maybe they are not 100% sure their sample wasnt tainted by hitchhiker particles.

[moot]

"No organics yet" was what they said IIRC.  There is an insider rumor that it's definitely not bacteria, and that it's relative to mars' suitability for life...  It could be any number of things, hopefully something the public can apreciate.  Not another Mira or G1.9+0.3 overhype.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1297

Briefing's here .. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/video/press_briefing_7_31.mp4  Something's definitely up with the nerds, they're all fidgety. 

[ROX]

What is also cool is that scientists are using shuttle to ISS and ISS missions to see how very long missions in space effect the human body, and how prolonged exposure to weightlessness can effect the human body (i.e. how it would effect humans on a trip to Mars).

I like the resistance bicycles on the space shuttles.  There has to be something else for upper body too.

Radio communications between Earth and Mars would be strange as well.  Radio waves travel at the speed of light.  On a moon mission there's not a lot to notice.  On a Mars mission there would definitely be some delay. 

I hope man makes it there someday.




ROX