Humans 'could survive Mars visit' UPDATED: First color Hi-res image from Mars (13MP)

[Analog]

Instrument data show radiation around the Red Planet might cause some health problems but is unlikely to be fatal.

Text


13 Megapixel Image from Mars (9MB)

 

[FoBoT]

i don't see the first expedition returning

getting there will be difficult enough, but making it back alive, it is just such a long trip, something is bound to go wrong the first time

 

[DrPizza]

IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

 

[StageLeft]

Now that would be a boring trip!

 

[rickn]

in the next 20yrs, humans will be on their way to Mars, probably looking for Oil.

 

[AMCRambler]

Wouldn't they have to establish that there was once life on Mars before we go looking for oil(oil equals fossil remains)?

 

[rudder]

Once you got to Mars your bones would be so brittle you could barely bruch up against something and suffer a break. Thats not to mention the ride home.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

 

[BillGates]

If they added Type R stickers and bigass spoilers they could seriously cut the time of the trip down.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: rudder
Once you got to Mars your bones would be so brittle you could barely bruch up against something and suffer a break. Thats not to mention the ride home.

Considering we have people in space for >6 months at a time now an they're in pretty good shape I wouldn't be too worried. If they take care of their bodies they'd be fine.

Not to mention that the gravity there is something like 1/4 of Earths, that'd help them too.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: BillGates
If they added Type R stickers and bigass spoilers they could seriously cut the time of the trip down.

dont forget the flames and neon lights. those would take off a couple years at least.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Imagine sticking a 3-10 people into a space ship and sending them on such a long journey. Imagine the psychological impact alone. Would they send an equal number of both gender? If so, you know there would be some sex in space.

So many things to consider on such a trip.

 

[ThaPerculator]

We need more NOS.

God I hate that movie.....

 

[nebula]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Now that would be a boring trip!

But just think how good you'd become at XBox, PS2, etc...

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Wouldn't they have to establish that there was once life on Mars before we go looking for oil(oil equals fossil remains)?

Yeah, forget Iraq. We got Mars to fuel our SUVs!

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
Wouldn't they have to establish that there was once life on Mars before we go looking for oil(oil equals fossil remains)?

well, they say that missions to mars, not manned of course, will become the norm, with planned unmanned missions every 2yrs. the Fifth trip delivers the drill (Haliburton writtin on the side)

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Imagine sticking a 3-10 people into a space ship and sending them on such a long journey. Imagine the psychological impact alone. Would they send an equal number of both gender? If so, you know there would be some sex in space.

So many things to consider on such a trip.

Well I wouldn't assume just because it's boy girl boy girl there will be sex other than at least masturbation....I am sure it may happen here or there, but I have known a couple long term pairings that didn't have anything more than business happen (to the sadness of my one friend (she was hoping to be stuck with a hunk, instead she got Peewee Herman/Bill nye type guy (science expedition)).

7 months is a long time sure to travel in a space ship....however I would imagine the first few 'populizations' will be larger scale as they will need to build things to live in, etc.

There are a lot of variables to solve, however, once they prove life will exist on Mars I am sure funding will come from commerical entities willing to be the first big companies on Mars.

The tricks are is what governments/laws are to be governing the planet...is it first country take all?

Å

 

[Nyical]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

Nuke engines still require a propellant/coolant in order to work, I think your thinking of Ion engines.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Nyical

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

Nuke engines still require a propellant/coolant in order to work, I think your thinking of Ion engines.

Yes, I know that propellant is still required. IIRC proposed nuclear propulsion has a much greater specific impulse than any chemical engines.

I suppose a nuclear engine could be used for the initial acceleration and braking burns with Ion engines used in between.

 

[bernse]

Originally posted by: yellowfiero
Instrument data show radiation around the Red Planet might cause some health problems but is unlikely to be fatal.

Text

Considering that the Earth has massive belts (Van Allen) of radiation and humans have been through them several times before, I'm suprised it was even a concern. The sapcecraft just has to be hardened enough the withstand them.

 

[matt426malm]

That article is better than the New York Times Dec 9 article which was total bull which started the 2 times greater idea.

Argument against recent 2 times greater radiation claim.

"Russian cosmonauts, however, have been on orbit even longer. One cosmonaut spent 18 months (~540 days) on Mir, which corresponds 150 Rem, slightly MORE than that projected by Wald?s Brookhaven sources for the round trip Mars mission. No radiation induced health effects have been reported in any of these cases. So Wald?s statement that the Mars mission dose represents a new order of magnitude in space radiation exposure is simply false. "

"In fact, it is not surprising that no radiation-induced health effects have been observed. According to the authoritative (and quite conservative ) Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) Report, a 130 Rem dose delivered over a long period of time (long with respect to metabolic repair cycles -say > 6 months) would correspond to about a 2% incremental risk of a fatal cancer at some time in the future for a 35 year old male. This is about the same incremental risk assumed by someone who smokes two packs a day for about 3 years (i.e. the astronauts going to Mars would incur the same cancer risk if they stayed home and smoked for the same duration). No prompt (observable) effects would be expected. "

Shuttles pose an enourmously bigger risk than radiation on a trip to mars and once ON mars the radiation is less than ISS. Just put some soil over your hab and the risk is significantly lower than ISS. UV is a bigger deal on mars than cosmic radiation but as long as your not naked no prob. UV's strong as those lamp sterilizers but with a suit on it does nothin.

Store water in the walls of your ship going to Mars and it's lower still. The risk comes from hightened solar activity not steady cosmic radiation. The water plus a lead lined safety area lowers the risk still.

In short radiation would be equal to about 1-1.3ish years in low earth orbit. 6 months there 6 months back equals about 1 year in low earth orbit, on mars the radiation being negligible.

IMHO opinion Robert Zubrin is THE authority on Mars. I admit he does have an agenda but he backs his stuff up.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Nyical

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

Nuke engines still require a propellant/coolant in order to work, I think your thinking of Ion engines.

Yes, I know that propellant is still required. IIRC proposed nuclear propulsion has a much greater specific impulse than any chemical engines.

I suppose a nuclear engine could be used for the initial acceleration and braking burns with Ion engines used in between.

A much easier way to get fuel is to bring the hydrogen there have a isotope nuclear power plant that takes the martian air Co2 and makes methane plus oxygen to breathe and oxidize the fuel. This is a much lower energy reaction than breaking apart water and is easier because ice at the equator is about 150m underground at the equator Ice can be found 20% to 50% above 60 degrees north in the first few meters as found by orbiters. (source 'A Travler's guide to Mars')

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Nyical

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

Nuke engines still require a propellant/coolant in order to work, I think your thinking of Ion engines.

Yes, I know that propellant is still required. IIRC proposed nuclear propulsion has a much greater specific impulse than any chemical engines.

I suppose a nuclear engine could be used for the initial acceleration and braking burns with Ion engines used in between.

A much easier way to get fuel is to bring the hydrogen there have a isotope nuclear power plant that takes the martian air Co2 and makes methane plus oxygen to breathe and oxidize the fuel. This is a much lower energy reaction than breaking apart water and is easier because ice at the equator is about 150m underground at the equator Ice can be found 20% to 50% above 60 degrees north in the first few meters as found by orbiters. (source 'A Travler's guide to Mars')

If I was sending the mission I would plan on there being no water at all. Otherwise, if there is not much nearby or easily recoverable there would be a problem.

 

[matt426malm]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: matt426malm

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Nyical

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: DrPizza
IIRC, early plans for a mars trip involve spending considerable time on Mars and knowning where there is a source of water on Mars, as fuel for the return trip would most likely come from hydrogen/oxygen fuel from the water. (and solar power to break apart the molecules)

Another way to go is nuclear. Then they would not have to make propellant for the return trip.
It would also cut the travel time down greatly.

Nuke engines still require a propellant/coolant in order to work, I think your thinking of Ion engines.

Yes, I know that propellant is still required. IIRC proposed nuclear propulsion has a much greater specific impulse than any chemical engines.

I suppose a nuclear engine could be used for the initial acceleration and braking burns with Ion engines used in between.

A much easier way to get fuel is to bring the hydrogen there have a isotope nuclear power plant that takes the martian air Co2 and makes methane plus oxygen to breathe and oxidize the fuel. This is a much lower energy reaction than breaking apart water and is easier because ice at the equator is about 150m underground at the equator Ice can be found 20% to 50% above 60 degrees north in the first few meters as found by orbiters. (source 'A Travler's guide to Mars')

If I was sending the mission I would plan on there being no water at all. Otherwise, if there is not much nearby or easily recoverable there would be a problem.

I agree that is why I would take the fuel from the air. Because it would require a big freaking space ship to bring the oxygen which is 8 times as heavy as the hydrogen you would need to bring and counting on water is risky. In the long run water which is very abundant on Mars is what makes it so appealing. Water on the moon is in the parts per million those who say it can exist in craters shadows are practicing wishfull thinking as the evidence of such is nill. On mars especially in the northern plains the soil is ice rich (20-50%!) from the surface down to 1km deep (at which point it would be melted by the planets internal heat). At mid latitudes it is easy to find permafrost below 100m deep.

 

[Rufio]

dude, jsut get a satellite internet connection, and you'll be set.


imagine the lag on warcraft III!!