Nasa outlines manned Mars vision - Page 3

keg in kc · 11-28-2007, 10:17 PM

Good stuff...

Nasa outlines manned Mars vision

By Paul Rincon
Science reporter, BBC News

Nasa has released details of its strategy for sending a human crew to Mars within the next few decades.

The US space agency envisages despatching a "minimal" crew on a 30-month round trip to the Red Planet in a 400,000kg (880,000lb) spacecraft.

Details of the concept were outlined at a meeting in Houston, Texas.

In January 2004, President George W Bush launched a programme for returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and - at an undetermined date - to Mars.

The "Mars ship" would be assembled in low-Earth orbit using three to four Ares V rockets - the new heavy-lift launch vehicle that Nasa has been developing.

Notionally despatched in February 2031, the mission's journey from Earth to Mars would take six to seven months in a spacecraft powered by an advanced cryogenic fuel propulsion system.

Estimates of the cost of mounting a manned Mars mission vary enormously, from $20bn to $450bn.

The details are highly subject to change, and may not represent the way Nasa eventually chooses to go to the Red Planet.

However, the document says this is the agency's current "best strategy" for landing humans on the Martian surface.

Grow your own

The cargo lander and surface habitat would be sent to Mars separately, launched before the crew in December 2028 and January 2029.

According to the Nasa presentation seen by BBC News, astronauts could grow their own fruit and vegetables on the way.

Once there, astronauts could spend up to 16 months on the Martian surface, and would use nuclear energy to power their habitat.

But the document points out that options for aborting the mission or furnishing the crew with new supplies would be extremely limited.

The difficulties of re-supply mean the astronauts would have to be remarkably self-sufficient.

They would need to be well-versed in the maintenance and repair of equipment and perhaps even able to manufacture new parts.

Recycled water

The spacecraft itself would be equipped with so-called "closed-loop" life support systems, in which air and water would be recycled.

Plants would be grown onboard to feed the crew and contribute to the "psychological health" of the astronauts.

But the report, authored by Nasa official Bret Drake, who sits on the agency's Robotic and Human Lunar Expeditions Strategic Roadmap Committee, says that many challenges remain for ensuring safe passage for the crew.

Nasa needs to come up with solutions for effectively protecting the astronauts from the high levels of cosmic radiation they will be exposed to in deep space and on the surface of Mars.

They will also need medical equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses or injuries.

Nasa proposes using the Moon as a testing ground for many of these new systems.

Details of the plan, which comes under Nasa's new Constellation programme, were presented at a meeting of Nasa's Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group.

**MahiMike** · 11-29-2007, 12:58 PM

Biggest waste of money since the Iraq war. Why in the galaxy do we need this?

FAX · 11-29-2007, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pushead2

7 months is a long time with no sex or beating the meat.

No problem, Mr. Pushead2. NASA developed a pill induce a form of apathy that makes you just want to sit around and look at the lights on your computer and pick wax out of your ears for days at a time. It was invented for the engineers after they blew up the Deep Space 2 probes.

FAX

Hammock Parties · 11-29-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Biggest waste of money since the Iraq war. Why in the galaxy do we need this?

The planet will not last forever.

FAX · 11-29-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Biggest waste of money since the Iraq war. Why in the galaxy do we need this?

Because we can terraform Mars and turn it into a resort hotel with gambling and showgirls. Duh.

FAX

**Gonzo** · 11-29-2007, 01:21 PM

My views of this may be a little different...

While I am all for the human race to strive for the next frontier, nay to boldly go where no douchebag has gone before, perhaps we should explore inward first.

The race will find a way to continue out of necessity.
It is an eventuallity. However, this is a smoke and mirror act by the current administration to try and distract the middle to upper class populous from current issues.
Why must the public invest billions of dollars to explore a planet that will be unable to support life? Is the earth going to be destroyed in the next 100 years? I doubt it. I am in no way bashing our commander in chief or trying to push politics whatsoever. I want to know why can't we invest that money into the following:

1. Debt: Is there not still a trillion dollar deficit?

2. Poverty: Either develop more assistance programs or get to the soylent green.

3. Education: I see stupid people daily.

4. Healthcare: Canada knows it's shit.

Therefore, before the comic-con population begins pinching their nipples in anticipation, perhaps we should look to old Mr. Jenkins and his granddaughter on the street, illiterate and dying from pnumonia.

Then again, it would be kinda cool to see a planet that looks like Oklahoma without the Semi-Trucks and lot lizards.

Ultra Peanut · 11-29-2007, 02:04 PM

**** old Mr. Jenkins.

chiefsfan987 · 11-29-2007, 02:35 PM

Sounds pretty cool, but I'll be suprised if it doesn't end in tragedy or disappointment.

**Rausch** · 11-29-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MahiMike

Biggest waste of money since the Iraq war. Why in the galaxy do we need this?

For starters, there's no plan B. I'd like to have a choice which rock I spin on.

Second, we still don't know if there's life there or not. If there isn't we very well can make it possible. It won't happen overnight, and odds are it will take well over a century at best.

Did Europe need to find the new world?...

Ultra Peanut · 11-29-2007, 03:49 PM

That's the thing. If you don't start somewhere, you aren't going to get anywhere.

Fixing things at home and discovering new things out there aren't mutually exclusive.

FAX · 11-29-2007, 03:54 PM

Excellent point, Ms. Ultra Peanut.

They has this expert on coasttocoastam who said that we could grow algae on Mars that would create an atmosphere. He said it would only take a few billion years and should be ready about the time the sun blows up.

FAX

**Donger** · 11-29-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gonzo

My views of this may be a little different...

While I am all for the human race to strive for the next frontier, nay to boldly go where no douchebag has gone before, perhaps we should explore inward first.

The race will find a way to continue out of necessity.
It is an eventuallity. However, this is a smoke and mirror act by the current administration to try and distract the middle to upper class populous from current issues.
Why must the public invest billions of dollars to explore a planet that will be unable to support life? Is the earth going to be destroyed in the next 100 years? I doubt it. I am in no way bashing our commander in chief or trying to push politics whatsoever. I want to know why can't we invest that money into the following:

1. Debt: Is there not still a trillion dollar deficit?

2. Poverty: Either develop more assistance programs or get to the soylent green.

3. Education: I see stupid people daily.

4. Healthcare: Canada knows it's shit.

Therefore, before the comic-con population begins pinching their nipples in anticipation, perhaps we should look to old Mr. Jenkins and his granddaughter on the street, illiterate and dying from pnumonia.

Then again, it would be kinda cool to see a planet that looks like Oklahoma without the Semi-Trucks and lot lizards.

So, we have to create Utopia here first? Sorry, but I disagree. But, I do agree that we only send people who know when to "its" and when to use "it's"

**Donger** · 11-29-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

Excellent point, Ms. Ultra Peanut.

They has this expert on coasttocoastam who said that we could grow algae on Mars that would create an atmosphere. He said it would only take a few billion years and should be ready about the time the sun blows up.

FAX

Mars already has an atmosphere.

**Gonzo** · 11-29-2007, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, we have to create Utopia here first? Sorry, but I disagree.

No, not a utopia per say but perhaps we turn some of the ingenuity and intelligence (and money) towards the current state of affairs. I'm a realist, there will always be problems and concerns but I doubt now is the time to be playing Star Trek.

FAX · 11-29-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Mars already has an atmosphere.

He meant a big one. You know, one that you can breathe and pollute and stuff.

FAX

Discuss Thrower · 11-29-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

Mars already has an atmosphere.

Yes, but a really fragile, carbon dioxide laden and cold one. Not to mention the fact the planet doesn't have protective belt like we have here. We are damned lucky to have that.

11-28-2007, 10:17 PM
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Nasa outlines manned Mars vision Good stuff... Nasa outlines manned Mars vision By Paul Rincon Science reporter, BBC News Nasa has released details of its strategy for sending a human crew to Mars within the next few decades. The US space agency envisages despatching a "minimal" crew on a 30-month round trip to the Red Planet in a 400,000kg (880,000lb) spacecraft. Details of the concept were outlined at a meeting in Houston, Texas. In January 2004, President George W Bush launched a programme for returning humans to the Moon by 2020 and - at an undetermined date - to Mars. The "Mars ship" would be assembled in low-Earth orbit using three to four Ares V rockets - the new heavy-lift launch vehicle that Nasa has been developing. Notionally despatched in February 2031, the mission's journey from Earth to Mars would take six to seven months in a spacecraft powered by an advanced cryogenic fuel propulsion system. Estimates of the cost of mounting a manned Mars mission vary enormously, from $20bn to $450bn. The details are highly subject to change, and may not represent the way Nasa eventually chooses to go to the Red Planet. However, the document says this is the agency's current "best strategy" for landing humans on the Martian surface. Grow your own The cargo lander and surface habitat would be sent to Mars separately, launched before the crew in December 2028 and January 2029. According to the Nasa presentation seen by BBC News, astronauts could grow their own fruit and vegetables on the way. Once there, astronauts could spend up to 16 months on the Martian surface, and would use nuclear energy to power their habitat. But the document points out that options for aborting the mission or furnishing the crew with new supplies would be extremely limited. The difficulties of re-supply mean the astronauts would have to be remarkably self-sufficient. They would need to be well-versed in the maintenance and repair of equipment and perhaps even able to manufacture new parts. Recycled water The spacecraft itself would be equipped with so-called "closed-loop" life support systems, in which air and water would be recycled. Plants would be grown onboard to feed the crew and contribute to the "psychological health" of the astronauts. But the report, authored by Nasa official Bret Drake, who sits on the agency's Robotic and Human Lunar Expeditions Strategic Roadmap Committee, says that many challenges remain for ensuring safe passage for the crew. Nasa needs to come up with solutions for effectively protecting the astronauts from the high levels of cosmic radiation they will be exposed to in deep space and on the surface of Mars. They will also need medical equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses or injuries. Nasa proposes using the Moon as a testing ground for many of these new systems. Details of the plan, which comes under Nasa's new Constellation programme, were presented at a meeting of Nasa's Lunar Exploration and Analysis Group.
Posts: 58,682

11-29-2007, 12:58 PM	#31
MahiMike He's Mahomie! Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Jax, FL Casino cash: $10023443	Biggest waste of money since the Iraq war. Why in the galaxy do we need this?
Posts: 17,387

11-29-2007, 02:04 PM	#36
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	**** old Mr. Jenkins. __________________
Posts: 39,518

11-29-2007, 02:35 PM	#37
chiefsfan987 MVP Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Casino cash: $8708441	Sounds pretty cool, but I'll be suprised if it doesn't end in tragedy or disappointment.
Posts: 6,160

11-29-2007, 03:49 PM	#39
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	That's the thing. If you don't start somewhere, you aren't going to get anywhere. Fixing things at home and discovering new things out there aren't mutually exclusive. __________________
Posts: 39,518

11-29-2007, 03:54 PM	#40
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	Excellent point, Ms. Ultra Peanut. They has this expert on coasttocoastam who said that we could grow algae on Mars that would create an atmosphere. He said it would only take a few billion years and should be ready about the time the sun blows up. FAX
Posts: 44,492