Mars and the moon.

[Cogman]

Do you think that we will ever get to the point where people live on either of these for over a year? Better yet, do you think it will occur in my lifetime (18). Also has anyone released what marses polar ice caps are made of? (CO2 or H2O). And what about the moon? have they found water there also?. One more question, Do you think they will find life on either, and why?

 

[Cogman]

Oh, and one more thing, What scientific advancements do you think need to take place before this is possible? For example, for us to get to the moon and back, we advanced with, smaller computers, lighter materials, strong epoxies (SUPER GLUE!!), and many other neat things like that.

 

[clarkmo]

Not in your lifetime, no. There is no water on the moon. Some theories accept cheese though. As far as Mars, you can see for yourself tonight as it is as close as it's been in 60,000 years.
Still lighter materials and stronger, something able to withstand the extreme heat of reentries. Perhaps something will come of the new synthetic diamond technology. Better engines and propulsion/fuels as well as higher speeds.

 

[FrankSchwab]

We have the technology today to go to Mars - the problem is more emotional and financial than technical.

With a Saturn-V (or a descendent thereof) we can launch a capsules on trajectories to Mars. There are some engineering problems, (like figuring out how to build a new one), but nothing insurmountable. With multiple launches, we could land sufficient supplies to maintain astronauts for a year, as well as shelter, their return ship and fuel.

Once everything is in place, we could launch a capsule with two astronauts. With no need for a LEM, sufficient supplies could probably be carried for their trip. A soft landing, a week setting up house in the pre-placed shelter, and they can settle in nice and snug. After a year, they launch themselves home, and either dock at the International Space station or splash down like Apollo.

The Financial problems are the enormous - Launching a dozen Saturn-V's (and developing all of the equipment for surviving on Mars) is gonna be expensive - probably no more expensive than the shuttle development and operation, however.

The emotional problems are tougher - no one is willing to coop a person up in a tiny capsule for the months that the journey would take each way. No one wants to be responsible for the entire globe being able to watch a person slowly go mad, and have no way to help them. No one is willing to watch a person slowly die on Mars because something went wrong with their return ship and they can't get home.

If the US or the World decides to make a Mars trip a priority, there is no real barrier to doing so - within 10 years, we could have people temporarily living on Mars. It's a political problem more than anything else. At this time in history, however, enthusiasm for this type of exploration appears to have waned, at least in the public sector. With the current enthusiasm in the private sector for spaceflight, it may very well happen that within your lifetime a private spaceship makes it to Mars with a human on-board.

First hit on Google gives a good overview of the celestial mechanics for getting to Mars:
Orbital mechanics for Mars Trip

/frank

 

[RossGr]

In addition to the problems mentioned by FrankS there is no reason to do it. There is no science that could be done by these men (or women) that could not be done remotly (robotics and remote control). The addition of humans and the lifesupport and saftey systems they require simply cannot be justified on a cost basis. Every Kg but into orbit costs something like $10K (I believe this is a lowball number, if you have a better number please correct me). The trip to Mars would be much more. When men are on board they accout for a huge precentage of the payload, without them along alot more science can be done at a much lower cost.

The only reason to send a man is for the glory and bragging rights, there is no scientific reason.

 

[clarkmo]

Nonsense. Build a better system for getting there and we'll go. These are the same reasons it took so long for Columbus or whoever to find us. As the ships and seafaring knowledge increased it became more feasible. Of course current technology meets a socio-political brick wall. Make the trip practical and we'll turn it into a 'burb.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: clarkmo
Nonsense. Build a better system for getting there and we'll go. These are the same reasons it took so long for Columbus or whoever to find us. As the ships and seafaring knowledge increased it became more feasible. Of course current technology meets a socio-political brick wall. Make the trip practical and we'll turn it into a 'burb.

What would that practical reason be?

 

[clarkmo]

Turn it into a burb. Practicality follows ability. If you could, let's say, teleport there, you'd find a reason as it would be easy to do.

 

[RossGr]

Even if rich deposits of ores were found on the moon it would make more sense to mine it robotically then to send men, who would stand around consuming valuble resources. Whiile MAKING NO meaningful contribution. Other then being there of course.

You want to see the effects of long term confinement to small spaces with lots of company, just talk to a submariner.

It is not a question of technology it is a matter of need. Men are not needed in space.

 

[OddTSi]

First, water has been found on the moon (in ice form). And the current working theory is that the polar ice-cap on Mars is also largely water.

Second, within your lifetime humans will land on Mars. And the way things work, they'll have to remain there for 2 years, there's no way around it. Every two years Mars and Earth come close to each other, it is only during this time that it's feasible to travel from one planet to the next. It is only during one of these periods that "probes" are sent to Mars. Even during this "close encounter" the trip one-way would take roughly 6 months, so you can imagine how long it would take at any other point. So yes, WHEN we go to Mars we'll be living there for roughly 2 years before we can head back.

As far as it costing a lot to ship things, that is the whole point of the proposed lunar space station. The moon can be mined for resources so that we wouldn't have to bring everything from the Earth. Humans would be flown up to the Lunar station, from there they would take a pre-prepared ship over to an orbit around Mars. It would be the most economical way of doing it.

Before we see humans go to Mars, we'll see them live on the moon for a while, as sort of a practice run. Whether or not they decide to launch a Mars mission from the Moon is inconsequential. In order to get prepared for living on a foreign planet for 2 years, look for at least a couple missions to the Moon that last a couple weeks or more. Sort of a learning/training scenario.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: clarkmo
Nonsense. Build a better system for getting there and we'll go. These are the same reasons it took so long for Columbus or whoever to find us. As the ships and seafaring knowledge increased it became more feasible. Of course current technology meets a socio-political brick wall. Make the trip practical and we'll turn it into a 'burb.

What would that practical reason be?

Financial. If there is a way to make money off going to Mars, it'll be done. The quickest method to getting the funding to go to Mars is showing how it would make a profit

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: RossGr
Every Kg but into orbit costs something like $10K (I believe this is a lowball number, if you have a better number please correct me). The trip to Mars would be much more. When men are on board they accout for a huge precentage of the payload, without them along alot more science can be done at a much lower cost.

I heard $10K/lb, but that was in the context of sending up a commercial satellite (ie, it might actually cost $10K/kg, but it retails for $10K/lb)

 

[Shalmanese]

Originally posted by: RossGr

The only reason to send a man is for the glory and bragging rights, there is no scientific reason.

No robot could have described what the earth looked like from space, no robot could have uttered the historic "One small step for a man..." speech and have it etched in the psyche of a generation, no robot could have just sat down at a complete loss of words for the beauty of what he was seeing and have the entire world feel what he was feeling.

The reason we went into space was not because of economic gain or politics really, the reason we went is because we could and because we all feel a yearning for a frontier and for the challenge. Theres a very good reason why man should go to mars and damn the costs.

 

[OddTSi]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Financial. If there is a way to make money off going to Mars, it'll be done. The quickest method to getting the funding to go to Mars is showing how it would make a profit

I completely agree with this. Competition brings out the best in people. It is competition (with the USSR) that got us to the moon first. It is competition that got us to develop the Space Shuttle program. Once that competition was gone, we didn't really make many advancements in the space industry. We need some competition to force us to make some leaps in technology. Maybe we can even commercialize space flight. Nothing like competiting for the almighty dollar to bring about giant strides of improvement among companies.

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: Shalmanese

Originally posted by: RossGr

The only reason to send a man is for the glory and bragging rights, there is no scientific reason.

No robot could have described what the earth looked like from space, no robot could have uttered the historic "One small step for a man..." speech and have it etched in the psyche of a generation, no robot could have just sat down at a complete loss of words for the beauty of what he was seeing and have the entire world feel what he was feeling.

The reason we went into space was not because of economic gain or politics really, the reason we went is because we could and because we all feel a yearning for a frontier and for the challenge. Theres a very good reason why man should go to mars and damn the costs.

As I said for glory and bragging rights. The only contribution to science made by men in space is to learn the effects of space on man.

Sorry for being a stick in the mud about this, guess I am just a bit bitter cause I'll never get a chance to get into space.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: RossGr

Originally posted by: Shalmanese

Originally posted by: RossGr

The only reason to send a man is for the glory and bragging rights, there is no scientific reason.

No robot could have described what the earth looked like from space, no robot could have uttered the historic "One small step for a man..." speech and have it etched in the psyche of a generation, no robot could have just sat down at a complete loss of words for the beauty of what he was seeing and have the entire world feel what he was feeling.

The reason we went into space was not because of economic gain or politics really, the reason we went is because we could and because we all feel a yearning for a frontier and for the challenge. Theres a very good reason why man should go to mars and damn the costs.

As I said for glory and bragging rights. The only contribution to science made by men in space is to learn the effects of space on man.

Sorry for being a stick in the mud about this, guess I am just a bit bitter cause I'll never get a chance to get into space.

Of course you have a chance... you just need to buy a ticket in one of the huge multi-state lotteries when the prize is over ~$75million, so that after taxes you'll have the 20mil to get a tourist ride on one of the Russia space flights

 

[RossGr]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: RossGr

Originally posted by: Shalmanese

Originally posted by: RossGr

The only reason to send a man is for the glory and bragging rights, there is no scientific reason.

No robot could have described what the earth looked like from space, no robot could have uttered the historic "One small step for a man..." speech and have it etched in the psyche of a generation, no robot could have just sat down at a complete loss of words for the beauty of what he was seeing and have the entire world feel what he was feeling.

The reason we went into space was not because of economic gain or politics really, the reason we went is because we could and because we all feel a yearning for a frontier and for the challenge. Theres a very good reason why man should go to mars and damn the costs.

As I said for glory and bragging rights. The only contribution to science made by men in space is to learn the effects of space on man.

Sorry for being a stick in the mud about this, guess I am just a bit bitter cause I'll never get a chance to get into space.

Of course you have a chance... you just need to buy a ticket in one of the huge multi-state lotteries when the prize is over ~$75million, so that after taxes you'll have the 20mil to get a tourist ride on one of the Russia space flights

Of course, why didn't I think of that!

Thats ok, I here the food sux!

 

[Pudgygiant]

I read awhile back (I believe it was in PopSci, and this could still just have been bull they were using to fill the pages, or I could be completely remembering wrong) that they actually developed a plan to terraform Mars, starting with some sort of microbe, a toxic one, but one that will die off in around a decade, to change a lot of the atmosphere. Then they developed those trees-in-pods things that can be dropped from just inside the atmosphere, laser guided and everything. So I think 50 years from now we will not only be on mars, but the environment won't be near as hostile as it is now.

 

[Macro2]

See Star Trek, vis a vie the "Genesis device" or Arnolds movie Total Recall.

Mac

 

[Particle Man]

One fatal problem with a trip to mars by humans will be cosmic radiation. Short trips, ie moon, can be sustained without terrible side effects. Mars will take almost two years with our best technologies, and there is nothing that can really protect an astronaut from cosmic radiation for this length of time. It is not so much money, as to the human life question. Unless there is a way to increase protection or decrease the mars flight time, mars is not yet feasible. However, it will eventually happen when the science and technology allows it.

 

[Shalmanese]

The "Red Mars" Series (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) is generally held to be the best fictional effort to describe how we could potentially terraform mars. It wont be a 10 year operation, probably more like 200 years.