DailyDirt: Making A Trip To Mars

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It's been decades since a human being has traveled beyond low earth orbit. Last year, NASA tested its human-rated Space Launch System to an altitude of 3,600 miles, but getting people to a "human accessible surface" that isn't part of the earth is going to take some time. China could have a taikonaut on the moon before 2030. NASA can say it's "been there, done that" -- but when will it be able to top a manned lunar landing? After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 26 Feb 2016 @ 5:55pm

    I'll take my astronaut medium rare

    I wonder how they are going to handle the radiation issue with Orion.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JoeCool (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 6:20pm

      Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

      High-temp superconducters. You won't need to cool them, just block any light from the sun and they'll be plenty cold enough in space. At that point you'll have near perfect shielding against charged particles, which are the vast majority of what you need to shield against.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2016 @ 6:44pm

        Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

        Even with a very strong magnetic field, some particles / radiation still makes it through during nominal solar activity - so if there were a huge CME pointed directly at the spaceship they still have a big problem. They could have a shielded room to hide in but weight restrictions would limit its size and they would not be getting the exercise necessary to prevent bone and muscle loss. They would be screwed. Artificial gravity is a potential solution but are we capable of making such a vehicle?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Pixelation, 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:53pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

          " so if there were a huge CME pointed directly at the spaceship they still have a big problem."

          Unless we genetically modify the astronauts with cockroach genes...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2016 @ 8:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

            But then wouldn't they grow to a humongous size thus causing mission failure?

            Houston ... we have a problem.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Pixelation, 26 Feb 2016 @ 9:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

              "
              Houston ... we have a problem."

              How in the hell do we dock with the deep space roach coach?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 8:41pm

          Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

          > They could have a shielded room to hide in but weight restrictions would limit its size and they would not be getting the exercise necessary to prevent bone and muscle loss.

          The usual design is for a "storm shelter" in the center of the spacecraft. Essentially the food closet. Turns out the moisture in the food means that it makes for good shielding, and they'll be launching a whole lot of it anyway. The spacecraft's water supply would also line the shelter. Beyond that would be the closet walls, the outer spacecraft wall, and all the equipment in between.

          The "storm shelter" would only be needed for a few hours at a time, so astronauts could still get exercise in the rest of the spacecraft.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2016 @ 7:02am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare

            Interesting solution, using food, water as shielding. Not sure that is enough when it is a direct hit. Also, the effects can last for many hours.

            "Within one hour of the impact, a cold, dense plasma sheet had formed out of the filament material and high density material continued to move through the magnetosphere for the entire six hours of the filament's passage."

            http://sci.esa.int/cluster/54573-a-mixed-up-magnetic-storm/

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Paraquat (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 7:20pm

    Cape Canaveral on the moon

    This idea of building a Cape Canaveral on the moon to help us to get to Mars more cheaply is moronic. Anytime you add complexity, you add cost, and often reduce the possibility of completing the original goal of the project.

    The Space Shuttle was a perfect example. It was touted as a way to save money on space flight because the craft were "reusable." But instead it proved to be expensive and unreliable, and far less capable of leaving low-earth orbit than the very successful Saturn rockets that took us to the moon. Ironically, US astronauts are now dependent on the Russians for rides to the ISS, even though the Russian-built rockets are only slightly improved versions of 1960s technology.

    I can think of no better way to sabotage Mars exploration than to divert resources to building a moon colony for mining and manufacturing fuel and parts for the Mars journey.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 26 Feb 2016 @ 8:23pm

      Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon

      The shuttle was not designed to leave LEO.

      Moonbat alpha is alive !!!
      I heard the dust is horrible, they will need a rumba.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 8:32pm

      Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon

      The Space Shuttle was a perfect example. It was touted as a way to save money on space flight because the craft were "reusable." But instead it proved to be expensive and unreliable,

      The Shuttle was built at least one X-vehicle too early. Instead it WAS an X-vehicle. As an experimental vehicle it was highly successful, testing many new technologies. The tiled heat shield, staged combustion engines and much more. Even after it was operational they went through multiple generations each of main engines, solid rocket boosters, external tanks (developing friction-stir welding along the way), avionics and more - improving designs along the way.

      But an X-vehicle doesn't make for a good, cheap, reliable operational vehicle. It should have been replaced with a new design based on the lessons learned.

      and far less capable of leaving low-earth orbit than the very successful Saturn rockets

      It wasn't capable of leaving low-earth orbit at all, nor was it ever intended to.

      The idea was to build the Space Shuttle, use that to build a space station, and then use both to assemble missions going beyond LEO.

      Ironically, US astronauts are now dependent on the Russians for rides to the ISS


      "Now?" The US has been dependent on Soyuz since the first crew arrived in November 2000 - and that was the plan years before that.

      NASA requires astronauts to have a ride home at all times in case of an emergency. The Shuttle - which got its power from hydrogen fuel cells - could only stay in orbit for a couple weeks. Soyuz - with its solar panels and batteries - can stay in orbit for six months.

      If it makes you feel better, the Russians are just as dependent on the US to get to ISS. Paid Soyuz flights for Americans and other ISS partners are likely the only thing keeping the Russian manned space program running.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      pixelpusher220 (profile), 26 Feb 2016 @ 8:38pm

      Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon

      The moon is less about expense in my concept and more about proofing technologies in a place we can get back from quickly.

      If we can also generate resources from the moon, that's a big bonus.

      I've never understood the concept of proofing technology somewhere that's 2 years away from rescue.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Stephen, 26 Feb 2016 @ 9:53pm

      Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon

      The Space Shuttle...to save money on space flight because the craft were "reusable." But instead it proved to be expensive and unreliable
      The Shuttle was NOT unreliable. It flew more successful missions over a longer period of time than Apollo did and suffered the same number of failures as Apollo did (Apollos 1 & 13). Yet I don't hear you calling Apollo a failure. If Apollo was a success and reliable despite Apollos 1 & 13, then so was the Shuttle.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        pixelpusher220 (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 3:21pm

        Re: Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon

        Eh I'd say it was about expectations. The Shuttle was supposed to be cheap and reusable. The Apollo craft were never intended as such.

        So when the Shuttle, instead of turn around times of weeks, became months and years at significant repeated expense, it doesn't meet the goals it was supposed to fulfill.

        It did amazing things but it was supposed to do that AND be cheap and reusable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Stephen, 26 Feb 2016 @ 10:39pm

    America and Mars

    NASA and America will not be going to Mars any time soon. NASA has not established a program for carrying out a manned Mars missions and the president and Congress have not given it a budget for doing so.

    Certainly the current president shows no interest. If anything he keeps wanting to cut NASA's missions and budget. He abolished Constellation, and would have abolished the SLS and Orion as well if Congress hadn't stepped in and overruled him. He did promise a mission to an asteroid, along with a vague promise about using it as a stepping stone for getting to Mars, but that has now morphed into a mission to lunar orbit to examine an asteroid brought there by an unmanned craft, a mission which won't fly until the 2020s, Congress does not seem to favour it, and the next president may well send it to the same graveyard of defunct space programs Constellation wound up in.

    To be fair, nor do I see much interest in the current crop of presidential candidates. Trump was specifically asked about Mars exploration at one speech in New Hampshire back in 2015 and gave a response which implied disinterest.

    I haven't seen much from any candidate since, suggesting that, like Obama, missions to Mars won't be a priority during their 4 or 8 years in office. If so, that could bring us to 2024 without any plan for manned Mars missions, which is leaving things rather late for NASA to land anybody there by or during the 2030s.

    At this stage I would suggest that China or India are more likely to get to Mars first before the US does; and since the US does not really like being second that may mean there will NEVER be any NASA Mars missions.

    There is also this: even if NASA does do manned missions to Mars, just how many such missions will there be? Will there be a whole flock of them or just one or maybe two, after which Congress will start balking at the cost and Americans in general start yawning and making complaints about missing their re-runs of the Kardashians?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2016 @ 7:08am

      Re: America and Mars

      Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?

      The added complexity and associated expense of human rated spacecraft are significant and therefore require a correspondingly significant return. What exactly would this be?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 28 Feb 2016 @ 2:34pm

        Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?

        I read a comment about the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), that a human could achieve as much in their first hour on Mars as the rover would take a month to do.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 28 Feb 2016 @ 8:27pm

          Re: Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?

          Agreed, however - I'm not sure that is worth the investment and risk. It is more efficient to send a robot.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Stephen, 2 Mar 2016 @ 3:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?

            It is more efficient to send a robot.
            Wrong! It would be more EFFICIENT to send to send a human. Humans can far more in a given span of time than the current crop of space robots.

            The only real reason robots are being sent to Mars is the cost. It is far cheaper to send a robot (and an expendable robot at that, who does not have to be brought back to Earth once the mission is over) than an unexpendable human.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 27 Feb 2016 @ 1:04pm

      Re: America and Mars

      > At this stage I would suggest that China or India are more likely to get to Mars first before the US does;

      That's not at all likely.

      India isn't funding its space program at anywhere near the level needed for a manned program, let alone for a manned lunar program.

      China does have a manned program. They've been repeating the America's Gemini mission milestones over the last 15 years. And at a slower pace - instead of Gemini's flights every few weeks, they're flying once every few years.

      Their next big project is their space station, a smaller version of Mir. Assembly will take several years starting around 2020. And then after that, they'll have to launch crews and cargo at a much higher rate than they launch now. No, there won't be any money for a manned lunar program at the same time. But unmanned lunar probes - including sample return - will continue.

      China suffers from the same problem as Russia, and the US in the 1970s: Lot of plans announced, plans that get repeated in the press. But plans aren't the same as funded plans.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Stephen, 2 Mar 2016 @ 3:44am

        Re: Re: America and Mars

        "China suffers from the same problem as Russia, and the US in the 1970s: Lot of plans announced....
        What "plans announced"? I have heard various rumours and assorted speculations about the Chinese manned space program, but no ANNOUNCEMENTS per se. (If you know of any, please give a URL or two.)

        One line of speculation suggested a Chinese manned Mars mission sometime in the 2040-60 period. Whether that actually happens is something we can have a debate about, but let's not confuse rumours and speculations with ACTUAL plans.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 2 Mar 2016 @ 1:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: America and Mars

          It's more than rumours and speculations. It's Chinese space program officials themselves telling reporters "This is what we plan to do." It then gets published by reporters as...

          China to send man to moon by 2025
          or
          Russia and China Aim for the Moon and a Joint Lunar Base

          Those were found just in the first quick Google search. There have been many such stories over the years.

          It's officials announcing "this is what we plan to", instead of "this is what we WILL do" or "this is what we're funded to do." But it's still Chinese officials announcing plans, regardless of whether bad reporting turns it into "this is what China IS doing."

          And it's been very common over the decades.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.