Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 226

Thread: Everything about Mars except colonisation and where there specific threads already co

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Planetary Society is optimistic that we might have humans orbiting Mars by 2033.
    So will they go to look down at what the Mars One inhabitants have been up to for the 9 years leading up to that flight?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,296
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    So will they go to look down at what the Mars One inhabitants have been up to for the 9 years leading up to that flight?
    That'd be assuming that the Mars One mission actually has a plan for survival of its human cargo, no?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    Over the next few years there already a few missions in the pipeline and a few more waiting for the go ahead. Popular mechanics has it all laid out for us.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...mars-timeline/

    We've got rovers like Curiosity and Opportunity still rolling around the Martian surface, and we've got orbiters like MAVEN and India's first Mars probe, ​Mangalyaan​ 1,​ in orbit. But as we close out Mars Week, here are the next explorers coming soon to the Red Planet.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has outdone all its previous feats by capturing an avalanche in action on Mars.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...-mars-orbiter/

    For all its similarities to Earth, it's easy to forget that Mars is its own place, frigid and weird. Like Earth, there are avalanches. Unlike Earth, it's not frozen water falling, but solid carbon dioxide. NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter captured this falling 65 foot flow catapulting down a slope on the Martian North Pole.

    Like on Earth, the ice is partly coming loose from the interaction of the sun warming it enough to cause fractures, which they break off the piece of ice and careen it down the side of the mountain. But water is in short supply on the surface of Mars, with only occasional seasonal flows on the surface alongside frost and a bit of snow.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    It is Mars week in Popular Mechanics. Here they highlight all the failed attempts to get there.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/spac...sion-failures/

    Opportunity and Curiosity are both going strong, roving on the surface. MAVEN, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Odyssey, and more probes are still in orbit. With so many successful missions to Mars, it's easy to forget that getting there has never been easy. In fact, more missions have failed than not: 28 flops compared to 19 successes.

    NASA has had its share of Mars messes, particularly in 1990s when four out of six missions failed. But the agency's troubles are nothing compared with how difficult Russia has found it to go to Mars. Space is hard. Here, we present a short history of Mars fails:

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    Posting the latest report from NASA "Outlining Next Steps in the Journey to Mars". Also posting another post from "NASA WATCH" blowing holes into it - actually reading it, I thought it was written by NEOWatcher

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=47019

    NASA is leading our nation and the world on a journey to Mars, and Thursday the agency released a detailed outline of that plan in its report, “NASA’s Journey to Mars: Pioneering Next Steps in Space Exploration.”

    “NASA is closer to sending American astronauts to Mars than at any point in our history,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “Today, we are publishing additional details about our journey to Mars plan and how we are aligning all of our work in support of this goal. In the coming weeks, I look forward to continuing to discuss the details of our plan with members of Congress, as well as our commercial and our international and partners, many of whom will be attending the International Astronautical Congress next week."
    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/1...8NASA+Watch%29

    Keith's note: This is just pathetic. There is no "plan" in this "plan". Its a description of a bunch of things what NASA says it needs to do but there is no budget, firm timeline, architecture, or overarching mission goals. This is just another PDF file with pretty pictures and a unorganized shopping list of ideas. This is not how you prepare for a "Journey to Mars" or a journey anywhere else for that matter. And how does this "plan" integrate with NASA's recently issued Strategic Plan? Wouldn't you think that they'd be intimately integrated?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    Also posting another post from "NASA WATCH" blowing holes into it - actually reading it, I thought it was written by NEOWatcher
    Only half agree with it.
    I see no plan in it either, but I do see a lot of necessary development that's needed. It would be nice if they laid it out a little more like a project plan with critical paths and dependencies of technologies. Certainly, with all the current unknowns, it's hard to set anything as "firm".

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,551
    I've got a big problem with NASAWATCH. The author's shrill screeds are not helpful.

    It is really sad to see all this NASA bashing from folks who purport to be space advocates.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    A new study done by MIT suggests that a Martian mission may lighten its launch load considerably by refueling on the moon. The study is not looking at the first few missions to Mars but one where we have regular trips like what we have to the ISS.

    http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/To_..._Mars_999.html

    The group developed a model to determine the best route to Mars, assuming the availability of resources and fuel-generating infrastructure on the moon. Based on their calculations, they determined the optimal route to Mars, in order to minimize the mass that would have to be launched from Earth - often a major cost driver in space exploration missions.

    They found the most mass-efficient path involves launching a crew from Earth with just enough fuel to get into orbit around the Earth. A fuel-producing plant on the surface of the moon would then launch tankers of fuel into space, where they would enter gravitational orbit. The tankers would eventually be picked up by the Mars-bound crew, which would then head to a nearby fueling station to gas up before ultimately heading to Mars.

    Olivier de Weck, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics and of engineering systems at MIT, says the plan deviates from NASA's more direct "carry-along" route.

    "This is completely against the established common wisdom of how to go to Mars, which is a straight shot to Mars, carry everything with you," de Weck says. "The idea of taking a detour into the lunar system ... it's very unintuitive. But from an optimal network and big-picture view, this could be very affordable in the long term, because you don't have to ship everything from Earth."

    The results, which are based on the PhD thesis of Takuto Ishimatsu, now a postdoc at MIT, are published in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    If this interpretation of NASA's ‘Journey to Mars’ report is correct than we will have permanent settlements on the red planet in the 2030s. Did any of you get that. We might be lucky to get boots on the ground but we are a long long way from even one permanent base on Mars.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...-by-2030s.html

    Humans will be living and working on Mars in colonies entirely independent of Earth by the 2030s, Nasa has said.

    The US space organisation today released its plan for establishing permanent settlements on the red planet, setting out in detail plans to create ‘deep-space habitation facilities’ which will act as stepping stones to Mars.

    In a new report entitled ‘Journey to Mars’ Nasa said the mission was ‘historic pioneering endeavor’ similar to the early settlers in America and Moon landing.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    A new study done by MIT suggests that a Martian mission may lighten its launch load considerably by refueling on the moon. The study is not looking at the first few missions to Mars but one where we have regular trips like what we have to the ISS.

    http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/To_..._Mars_999.html
    The key statement in that article.
    Assuming that such technologies are established at the time of a mission to Mars...
    We are several decades away from having the technologies, infrastructure and shuttle vehicles for that to happen.

    This is something that has been discussed several times here on this board, but it's going to take time.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    If this interpretation of NASA's ‘Journey to Mars’ report is correct than we will have permanent settlements on the red planet in the 2030s.
    Humans will be living and working on Mars in colonies entirely independent of Earth by the 2030s, Nasa has said.
    Nothing in that document indicates any dates past the 2020's. And the quote they project this from "In the next few decades" is very unclear.

    I hope they can do it, but saying it based on this is just hype.
    Last edited by NEOWatcher; 2015-Oct-16 at 12:17 AM. Reason: fixed quote

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Re-fuel on the moon???????? You're kidding. There is the matter of a gravity well there. Really. It would be easier to rendezvous with fuel in low Earth orbit and then press on to mars orbit. I don't see any majic in the lunar surface. And so far..... the only vehicles which have landed on
    Luna and then (leaving part of the vehicle there) returned to Lunar orbit have been quite small, humble and fragile vehicles aka the lunar module.
    And ... there are no mooseberries on luna.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Re-fuel on the moon???????? You're kidding.
    They didn't say "re-fuel on the moon". They said the re-fueling would be in lunar orbit.

    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    There is the matter of a gravity well there. Really. It would be easier to rendezvous with fuel in low Earth orbit and then press on to mars orbit.
    With fuel from where? Earth?

    Lifting all that fuel from the moon, even with the fuel needed to re-land the tankers is still a lot of savings.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Hi, There may be advantages by building and fueling in LEO. I don't see any in luna . It seems a distraction from a primary goal. And exit from a lunar orbit may just involve a more critical and narrow window .
    What say you,Sir ?

    Dan

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Hi, There may be advantages by building and fueling in LEO. I don't see any in luna . It seems a distraction from a primary goal. And exit from a lunar orbit may just involve a more critical and narrow window .
    What say you,Sir ?

    Dan
    Not lunar orbit but at one of the Lagrange points. Surely if the fuel is produced on the moon, getting it to LEO will be a waste of resources.
    Last edited by selvaarchi; 2015-Oct-16 at 07:55 PM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    Hi, There may be advantages by building and fueling in LEO. I don't see any in luna . It seems a distraction from a primary goal. And exit from a lunar orbit may just involve a more critical and narrow window .
    What say you,Sir ?

    Dan
    Building, yes. Fueling... it depends on how easily it is to produce the fuel on the moon. The assumption on this story is that an automated base can do that relatively easily, or be set up as an infrastructure in conjuction to support lunar exploration. If that can be accomplished, why wouldn't it be easier to fuel in lunar orbit or L1?

    Distraction? Probably so. It's just another group cashing in on Mars stories right now. No doubt it's a long term idea.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    It would appear that you need to burn the fuel you are making to get off of the lunar surface. Is there really some vision of " Rocky Jones "
    blasting off the surface of the moon with some giant rocket all chuck full of rocket fuel ? This scheme doesn't inspire confidence.
    It seems that this is some kind of rationale to justify using the moon . Kinda like using a bus to deliver water from the east coast to California.
    Yes, you could do it. But......

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,551
    Just use solar electric to get to Mars--and harvest water right there.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2015-Nov-01 at 07:20 PM.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    22,006
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    It would appear that you need to burn the fuel you are making to get off of the lunar surface. Is there really some vision of " Rocky Jones "
    blasting off the surface of the moon with some giant rocket all chuck full of rocket fuel ? This scheme doesn't inspire confidence.
    It would appear that you need to burn fuel you are making to get off the Earth's surface too. Why doesn't that scheme not inspire confidence?

    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    It seems that this is some kind of rationale to justify using the moon . Kinda like using a bus to deliver water from the east coast to California.
    Yes, you could do it. But......
    Kinda like using a truck to deliver avocados to the East Coast?

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    R.I. USA
    Posts
    10,014
    Hi, They can use solid RB's to get off Earth. Easier than trying to do ANYTHING on the moon.
    The avocados probably ride on a train to east coast distribution , and truck to user.
    If the weather gets warmer, we'll start growing them here

    Dan

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    Quote Originally Posted by danscope View Post
    It would appear that you need to burn the fuel you are making to get off of the lunar surface. Is there really some vision of " Rocky Jones "
    blasting off the surface of the moon with some giant rocket all chuck full of rocket fuel ? This scheme doesn't inspire confidence.
    It seems that this is some kind of rationale to justify using the moon . Kinda like using a bus to deliver water from the east coast to California.
    Yes, you could do it. But......
    Latest article in The Space Review (link below) has the following - "It is significant that it takes only about 75 tons of LOX and LH2 propellant to bring 25 tons of the same propellant from the lunar surface to L1 or L2, including a round trip back to the Moon for the tanker. To bring the same amount of propellant to L1 from the Earth would take at least 1,000 tons (assuming the bulk of it is first stage methane-oxygen). This means that it would take at least 13 times more energy to get the fuel for a Mars mission to the logical starting point, underscoring the importance of infrastructure in cost reduction. "

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2847/1

    The Alliance for Space Development held a press conference on July 20, highlighting a report that pointed to a new way of conducting human space operations using reusable vehicles developed by private companies that would operate from a base at a location near the Moon such as L1 Lagrange point (see “Cutting the costs of a human return to the Moon”, The Space Review, July 27, 2015). The initial use for such a method would be to support a lunar polar mining base, where a fully reusable lunar lander (or lunar ferry) could become the first reusable vehicle to operate wholly in space. Since one main purpose of the lunar base would be to provide large volumes of propellants to the space base for use by Mars expeditions, it makes sense that the lunar and L1 bases would need to be built before any Mars expeditions begin, and that the reusability of the lunar and cislunar architecture should, by all rights, be naturally extended to the Mars mission architecture.

    Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case, based on both the very recent releases of the Planetary Society’s report on human Mars missions (see “Orbiting first: a reasonable strategy for a sustainable Mars program”, The Space Review, October 5, 2015) and multiple new reports on NASA’s Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV) design, details of which have not publicly been released. Those recent developments demonstrate continued support for antiquated, fully-expendable architectures. Although Congress is currently starving NASA of funding for both commercial crew and beyond low Earth orbit hardware development, it is not clear where the very effective opposition to reusability ultimately comes from. This is certainly not related to the effort that goes into designing the expendable vehicles, since no one should fault the engineers doing excellent and detailed design work on them. They do not control policy. There is, nevertheless, a very large gap in thinking and planning between the current official Mars plans, derived ultimately from the Apollo mission model and based on all-expendable boosters and spacecraft, and the newer, technically progressive concepts which focus on reusable, commercially-derived vehicles.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    NEOWatcher, you might want to update your table in post #27 with information from the article below. They are talking about a mission to returning samples from Phobos in 2024 and this is followed by a Mars sample return in the 2030s.

    http://www.russianspaceweb.com/expedition_m.html

    Surprisingly, the Expedition-M project appeared to survive the budget cuts at the beginning of 2015, which claimed a number of high-cost and long-term projects.

    In April 2015, the development of the spacecraft was included into the proposed draft of the 10-year Federal Space Program beginning in 2016. At the time, the launch of the Expedition-M spacecraft was scheduled on the Angara-5 rocket with the KVTK space tug in the first half of 2024 from Vostochny, replacing the Proton rocket in Baikonur.

    However the mission was now re-purposed for returning samples from Phobos, instead of Mars. The technology could still pave the way to the Mars sample return in 2030s.
    Last edited by selvaarchi; 2015-Oct-22 at 01:18 PM.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    A new in-house report by NASA concludes that NASA needs to do a lot more R&D to keep their astronauts healthy on the long trips to Mars.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...azards-n454436

    NASA needs to get cracking if it wants to keep its astronauts alive and well on missions to Mars, according to a new in-house report.

    In an extensive audit, NASA's inspector general office looked at the space agency's overall effort to keep astronauts safe during lengthy space missions — especially trips to Mars, currently targeted for the 2030s.

    Among the top health hazards for three-year, round-trip Mars missions: space radiation that could cause cancer, central nervous system damage, cataracts or infertility; extreme isolation, which could lead to psychological problems; and prolonged weightlessness, already known to weaken bones, muscles and vision.

    There's also the issue of limited amounts and types of medicine and food, the latter potentially leading to weight loss and malnutrition.

    Inspector General Paul Martin acknowledged that NASA is making progress in identifying and managing these health risks. NASA's first yearlong mission is underway at the International Space Station.

    But Martin pointed out that the space agency is optimistic in thinking it can resolve all the issues by the 2030s.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by selvaarchi View Post
    A new in-house report by NASA concludes that NASA needs to do a lot more R&D to keep their astronauts healthy on the long trips to Mars.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...azards-n454436
    It's been known for a long time what hazards go along with long term space travel. I guess the reason it's news now is that NASA has fallen behind on actively addressing them.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,551
    In general, the more stuff you send up there the better off the astronauts will be.

    The biggest rule is "don't skimp."

    On the subject of planetary protection--we've all heard it parroted for years about how dirty the human body is, etc.

    But consider this:

    All the tiny robots we have seen--all the instruments--have been assembled down here in this atmospheric soup. You clean a surface off--leave it wet, and something just floats by and sticks.

    You are actually cleaner to put humans on Mars--especially with these suits that remain linked to the outside of the rover--and you just climb in through the back.

    Then, once outside, you use the two man rule and srub the backpacks down that do face inside. It's all rather like Level 4 bio-containment.

    You assemble and clean vacuum packed instruments in situ, on a more barren part of Mars. You do all that construction/assembly **there**--really put elbow grease into it so you know it's clean, then leave the tent and go to the brine areas wearing footies over a disposable outer suit. Both are nuked in their containers. Use a glove box for as much as you can.

    You bear down on rocks with instruments assembled there, in the near vacuum.

    That is actually going to be cleaner than either JPL/Earth packaged bots--or even telepresence.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2015-Nov-01 at 07:33 PM.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    In general, the more stuff you send up there the better off the astronauts will be.

    The biggest rule is "don't skimp."
    But mass fractions will play a role in any space endeavor. So the second rule is "pack light".

    It's all rather like Level 4 bio-containment.
    I don't think any large scale human effort is going to be germ-free. Sending humans to Mars means accepting that we're going to introduce biological matter. As you just pointed out, it's too late now to make sure it's all sterile.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    This statement by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. has taken me by surprise - "We are going to send a team of robots in. We will send the robotic precursors in. ... That's what I mean about collaboration between humans and robotic technology,"

    He implies when NASA astronauts arrive on Mars in the 2030s there will be a base constructed underground for them by robots sent in advance. This will have to start happening in the mid 2020s at least. I have seen any plans by NASA to develop these robots. Can anyone throw some light on this? They would be useful to build bases on the moon as well

    http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/NAS...efore_999.html

    Bolden also said that when the 2030 manned mission arrived on the Martian surface, the astronauts would not have to build their own base because it would already have been constructed underground for them by robots sent in advance.

    "We are going to send a team of robots in. We will send the robotic precursors in. ... That's what I mean about collaboration between humans and robotic technology," he pointed out.

    Bolden explained an underground base on Mars would have many advantages for human survivability over one constructed on the planet's surface.

    "I think we will probably live under ground for the most part. It gets rid of the need for above ground shielding," he stated.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,941
    I would be very surprised if NASA met that goal anytime in the 2030s. I would be impressed if they did it by the 2040s.

    It's notable that they have not put forth any budget for developing these machines.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Klang, Malaysia
    Posts
    7,474
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I would be very surprised if NASA met that goal anytime in the 2030s. I would be impressed if they did it by the 2040s.

    It's notable that they have not put forth any budget for developing these machines.
    Agreed. In fact at a workshop that NASA had in Huston last week, all the pictures of the bases in the video were above ground. Looking at what they want to do in the video, I would agree with you the 2040s is a more likely time frame. Unless of course Congress suddenly doubles the NASA budget.

    http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-pla...957137/?no-ist

    Last week NASA held a workshop in Houston to begin the long process of selecting a landing site for a future human mission to Mars. Ellen Ochoa, director of the Johnson Space Center, and John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. opened the meeting, and from their remarks it was clear they believe the agency has both the technical ability and the motivation to take on such an ambitious project.

    Even though the launch is still about 20 years off, with the first Mars expedition planned for around 2035, the workshop represents a first official step. One of its objectives was to identify what robotic missions need to be sent, and what data need to be acquired, in order for the agency to choose a landing spot. A second goal was to identify what resources would be present at the proposed landing sites and how to obtain them.

    NASA officials showed preliminary mission scenarios, while emphasizing that human exploration of Mars is not planned as a single mission, but a series of three to five expeditions, each with a crew of four to six, lasting about 500 Martian days each. All would land in the same exploration zone, or EZ. The plan includes the construction of a surface field station to be located in the center of the exploration.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •