Which Nation Will Be The First To Reach Mars?

[tfp]

I have wondered about this for a while now, who will send a manned mission to Mars? The three obvious ones are USA, China and Russia.

USA after George (Idiot) Bush decided to cut the funding to the space programme once the ISS was built, which resulted in the Space Shuttle being grounded. This surely means they have less funding to create the technology needed to make the mission possible?

Russia however, I'm afraid we will probably never know if they are working on a manned project, seeing as though all of their work is all so secretive! If they achieve this, they will probably announce it only after the crew get back. Which I guess is fine in my book, although not as good as someone documenting the whole thing.


Which leaves China, they seem to be the ones dabbling the most with orbital flight etc, but I have no idea if the funding would be there? I wonder how keen are the Chinese to making this possible?


I saw a Nasa spokesperson on TV a couple of months ago saying there was NO technology they diddnt have that would restrict them from making this mission possible. I am assuming the only reason they dont go now is because of the huge amount of money needed.

Either way, I wasn't alive when the Apollo 11 crew first stepped onto the moon, or when Uri Gagarin and Al Shephard first went into space, I'd love to think I could be around to witness the next milestone in space travel.

What do everyone else think?

[donKey jote]

India :p

[schmenke]

It'll never happen.

[A.F.F.]

Good one. Everybody knows there's nothing beyond the moon!!

[tfp]

India :p

India......

[Zico]

Cant see it happening but if If it did, probably the Russians, judging from their 500 day Mars simulation in 09 they seem more serious than the US. Obama did say 2030 for a manned orbit and mid 2030's for a landing at a NASA conference in April 2010 NASA - President Barack Obama on Space Exploration in the 21st Century (http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html)

...but he wont be in power then.

[donKey jote]

India to prove they're better than China... nobody else has a chance :)

[ioan]

Who cares who will be the first?
It will be a great achievement if anyone makes it.

[Rollo]

China.

People's Daily Online -- Roundup: China to develop deep space exploration in five years (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200607/20/eng20060720_284801.html)
A senior Chinese space agency official said in Beining on Wednesday that China would actively plan its deep space exploration over the next five years, focusing on lunar and Mars exploration.

Sun Laiyan, administrator of the China National Space Administration, said China would study the distribution and utilization of lunar resources and terrestrial planetary science as well as exploring scientific measures for supporting mankind's sustainable survival on Earth.

China was the third independent nation to put people into space and to the best of my knowledge, the only nation with any current plans to go to Mars.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

It will be a multi-national project headed by the US but involving Russia, ESA, China and India.

[Gregor-y]

Richard Branson?

[Rollo]

Britain?
How hard can it be? :D

It might be easier to land a man on the sun. OK, sure it's very very very hot but we could solve that by going at night!

[race aficionado]

Hey Rollo.
I want what you are having!

[Rollo]

Britain has already launched a shuttle:

http://www.madeofdots.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/robien_reliant_space_shuttle.jpg

Remember, if blokes working in sheds could build Grand Prix cars like Lotus and Williams, then going to Mars should be easy because you don't have any aerodynamic problems in space.

[Roamy]

I have wondered about this for a while now, who will send a manned mission to Mars? The three obvious ones are USA, China and Russia.

USA after George (Idiot) Bush decided to cut the funding to the space programme once the ISS was built, which resulted in the Space Shuttle being grounded. This surely means they have less funding to create the technology needed to make the mission possible?

Russia however, I'm afraid we will probably never know if they are working on a manned project, seeing as though all of their work is all so secretive! If they achieve this, they will probably announce it only after the crew get back. Which I guess is fine in my book, although not as good as someone documenting the whole thing.


Which leaves China, they seem to be the ones dabbling the most with orbital flight etc, but I have no idea if the funding would be there? I wonder how keen are the Chinese to making this possible?


I saw a Nasa spokesperson on TV a couple of months ago saying there was NO technology they diddnt have that would restrict them from making this mission possible. I am assuming the only reason they dont go now is because of the huge amount of money needed.

Either way, I wasn't alive when the Apollo 11 crew first stepped onto the moon, or when Uri Gagarin and Al Shephard first went into space, I'd love to think I could be around to witness the next milestone in space travel.

What do everyone else think?

Well I think George Bush saw this was a worthless effort. We are bankrupt so why don't you have your country fund this bullish!t.

[Dave B]

China.

They'll simply stand on each others' shoulders.

[Mark]

I can well see China doing it, there isn't the will in the rest of the world but China seem eager to prove themselves. Plus their system of government allows for the massive spending required!

[Gregor-y]

Britain?
How hard can it be? :D

It might be easier to land a man on the sun. OK, sure it's very very very hot but we could solve that by going at night!
I'd think you could go at any time. Since it was closed I'll bet the Sun's cooled off.

[chuck34]

USA after George (Idiot) Bush decided to cut the funding to the space programme once the ISS was built, which resulted in the Space Shuttle being grounded. This surely means they have less funding to create the technology needed to make the mission possible?

This isn't strictly true. Bush didn't decide to cut funding once the ISS was built. First reason is that the ISS was not complete until Bush left office. The second reason is that he never pushed to cut NASA's funding (although he didn't exactly push it increase it either). Remember Congress controls funding, not the President.

What Bush did do was call for a better alternative to the Space Shuttle. This was much needed as was demonstrated twice by tragic disasters. Both of which were caused (at the very root) by having the crew compartment next to the rocket rather than on top of it. Had the Challenger disaster happened with a more "traditional" rocket, a fault would have been detected, and the escape rocket would have fired pulling the crew to safety. And the Columbia would not have ever been an issue. The foam would have just fallen harmlessly away to the sea. Continuing to launch crews beside the rocket (essentially a big bomb) was just asking for yet another tragic loss of life. Something had to be changed.

So we ended up with the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in the '05 time frame under Bush. That in turn led to Constellation. Which due to mission creep, a managment structure within NASA that wanted "the biggest, baddest rocket ever, damn the consequences", and a Congress restraining NASA's budget led to a program that was massively underfunded to the point of cancelation. Now we have the Space Launch System (SLS) which is much more in line with the original goals of the VSE and can work in the more modest (and realistic) budgets NASA can expect in the next few years. This is not the perfect system, and in my opinion is still underfunded, but that is just the reality of the world we live in today.


But to answer your question, who will get to Mars first. I think it will either be the Chineese, or Space-X.

[Sonic]

Gotta get back to the moon first, which I would expect to be a multi-national endeavour. Or, failing that, private companies.

[Rollo]

Gotta get back to the moon first, which I would expect to be a multi-national endeavour. Or, failing that, private companies.

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was itemised and reported to Congress at a cost of about $25.4bn in 1973. If you allow 4% inflation, then that would work out to about $112.7bn in 2012 terms. Private companies would want a return from their $112.7bn and to be honest I just don't see how you could turn a profit from such a project.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was itemised and reported to Congress at a cost of about $25.4bn in 1973. If you allow 4% inflation, then that would work out to about $112.7bn in 2012 terms. Private companies would want a return from their $112.7bn and to be honest I just don't see how you could turn a profit from such a project.

They could strike a deal with the BBC and SKY for viewing rights. 10 of the landings would be shown live on the BBC, but all 20 landings can be seen on pay-per-view on SKY.

[Andrewmcm]

China, if we're talking national efforts. Without question.

Or a private investor with a lot of money to burn.

[tfp]

Thankyou for all of the replies, @ Zico and Rollo thankyou for the links, they made very interesting reading!


Cant see it happening but if If it did, probably the Russians, judging from their 500 day Mars simulation in 09 they seem more serious than the US. Obama did say 2030 for a manned orbit and mid 2030's for a landing at a NASA conference in April 2010 NASA - President Barack Obama on Space Exploration in the 21st Century (http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/trans/obama_ksc_trans.html)

...but he wont be in power then.


China.

People's Daily Online -- Roundup: China to develop deep space exploration in five years (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200607/20/eng20060720_284801.html)
A senior Chinese space agency official said in Beining on Wednesday that China would actively plan its deep space exploration over the next five years, focusing on lunar and Mars exploration.

Sun Laiyan, administrator of the China National Space Administration, said China would study the distribution and utilization of lunar resources and terrestrial planetary science as well as exploring scientific measures for supporting mankind's sustainable survival on Earth.

China was the third independent nation to put people into space and to the best of my knowledge, the only nation with any current plans to go to Mars.


China, if we're talking national efforts. Without question.

Or a private investor with a lot of money to burn.

Most peoples opinions seem to be pointing towards a multi-national effort(perhaps Europe?) or China. Either way, it will be one hell of an achievement if and when its done, and with modern cameras will provide much better coverage than the late 60's/early 70's cameras :)

[Sonic]

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was itemised and reported to Congress at a cost of about $25.4bn in 1973. If you allow 4% inflation, then that would work out to about $112.7bn in 2012 terms. Private companies would want a return from their $112.7bn and to be honest I just don't see how you could turn a profit from such a project.

I've got no reason to doubt your figures and I think it is fair to say that a private space mission would need to accept that there would be no immediate return on investment.

[monadvspec]

Azerbaijan.

[chuck34]

Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was itemised and reported to Congress at a cost of about $25.4bn in 1973. If you allow 4% inflation, then that would work out to about $112.7bn in 2012 terms. Private companies would want a return from their $112.7bn and to be honest I just don't see how you could turn a profit from such a project.

The stated goal of Space-X (and more specifically Elon Musk) is to go to Mars. They have already orbited a Dragon capsule, and they will be sending one to the ISS in the next few months. After that they have plans to orbit a Bigalow (sp?) inflatable station. Then on to either Mars or the Moon. Granted lots of companies have had these goals in the past, but none of them have ever gotten as far down the path as Space-X. So at this point I don't really have any doubt that Space-X will get to Mars at some point.

Another point I would take a bit of exception with in your post is the costs. Even if we take the numbers for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo at face value (which I have no reason not to), that does not mean that a program done now will cost the same. Quite the opposite in fact. The early NASA programs were literally inventing new technologies. All of which are public domain. No one has to re-invent the wheel. A fact that Space-X and other companies have taken advantage of quite well. Space-X has done basically what Gemini did for around $2 Billion (I think that's the number I've heard). So getting to the moon will not cost any where near $112 Billion.

[schmenke]

...Another point I would take a bit of exception with in your post is the costs. Even if we take the numbers for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo at face value (which I have no reason not to), that does not mean that a program done now will cost the same. Quite the opposite in fact. The early NASA programs were literally inventing new technologies. All of which are public domain. No one has to re-invent the wheel. A fact that Space-X and other companies have taken advantage of quite well. Space-X has done basically what Gemini did for around $2 Billion (I think that's the number I've heard). So getting to the moon will not cost any where near $112 Billion.

Perhaps, but the logistics of travelling to Mars are exponentially more complex than travelling to the moon, so yes, a fair bit of wheel re-inventing is necessary.

As I said, it'll never happen.
The science and technology simply doesn't currently exist to even begin to solve many of the problems associated with manned travel to Mars.

[Mark]

As I said, it'll never happen.
The science and technology simply doesn't currently exist to even begin to solve many of the problems associated with manned travel to Mars.

Not so. We have the technology NOW to go to Mars if we so desired. The challenge is getting there without spending trillions.

[schmenke]

Sorry, yes, it is possible Mark, but certainly not feasible with our current technology.
It would take an order of magnitude advanced leap in our current technology to make it feasible.
So, as I said, it’ll never happen.

[Mark]

Sorry, yes, it is possible Mark, but certainly not feasible with our current technology.
It would take an order of magnitude advanced leap in our current technology to make it feasible.
So, as I said, it’ll never happen.

But wasn't it really not feasible in the 1960's either? They only succeeded because they basically had unlimited funds.

[chuck34]

Sorry, yes, it is possible Mark, but certainly not feasible with our current technology.
It would take an order of magnitude advanced leap in our current technology to make it feasible.
So, as I said, it’ll never happen.

How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

[tfp]

But wasn't it really not feasible in the 1960's either? They only succeeded because they basically had unlimited funds.

I still find it amazing, how the Soviets could even compete with Nasa, nevermind beat them for a short amount of time in the space race, given Nasa had pretty much a blank cheque and the Russians all did it in top secret!


How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

Apparently, like Mark said, theres nothing to physically stop us from going, only the cost!
From what I gather, the plan will have to be to develop a new kind of propulsion - one which is specifically designed to work in the vacuum of space, and not really designed to be used on our atmosphere and all the friction it creates.

[Mark]

Ion drive is suitable for that but it's rather slow. But rockets do work in space and you don't need a lot of fuel, just a short burst to accelerate and to brake then the same in return. The same as the moon missions.

[Sonic]

As I understand it, Ion drive - or impulse drive as I small now call it - has a better top speed than regular propulsion methods, it just takes significantly longer to accelerate.

[Mark]

In space top speed is unlimited except by how much fuel you can carry. The advantage with ion drive is it's extremely fuel efficient.

[chuck34]

Apparently, like Mark said, theres nothing to physically stop us from going, only the cost!
From what I gather, the plan will have to be to develop a new kind of propulsion - one which is specifically designed to work in the vacuum of space, and not really designed to be used on our atmosphere and all the friction it creates.

Yes it will cost a lot, but so has every significant advancement in human history. That cost comes from putting the mass required to get there in orbit. That can be done either in a couple of BIG chunks, or in a bunch of little chunks with on orbit assembly. Other than that there is really nothing stopping us. There is no need to develop new propulsion. Although that will help. VASIMR looks promising at the moment. But that is only for getting from LEO to Mars. There really isn't any better way to get from the ground to LEO right now. Maybe an elevator at some point, but there a lot of unknown unknowns about that to be honest.

What is lacking is the will to do it. And that has always been the problem. That is why Apollo was canceled. Same with AAP, SS Freedom, X-38, and a whole host of other promising projects.

[schmenke]

How so? What technology is not significantly advanced?

And "It'll never happen"? Seriously?

Sigh..

For starters:

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

In a nutshell...
Consider that mankind currently struggles to get to low earth orbit, let alone the moon.
Consider that the distance to the moon is approximately 400,000kms. Minimum distance to Mars? Approx. 56,000,000kms. That’s about 14,000% further.

It’ll never happen. Seriously.

[Malbec]

In space top speed is unlimited except by how much fuel you can carry. The advantage with ion drive is it's extremely fuel efficient.

Top speed may be unlimited but you also have to shed the speed at the other end and yet carry enough fuel to do the exact same thing in reverse to come home.

[Malbec]

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

Current propulsion systems are adequate but the mission will take longer.


Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Radiation levels will be high and the astronauts will likely have an increased lifetime risk of cancer but they will survive the journey. Radiation levels won't be that different from the ISS where astronauts already spend prolonged periods there.


Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

These challenges are identical to those faced by astronauts on the ISS already and their US/Soviet predecessors. It will not be a problem. Of greater importance is the psychological aspect of complete isolation with no chance of an immediate change in company.


Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

Water can be recycled limiting the amount that has to be taken up, however I agree, this is the single biggest obstacle.

In answer to the OP, I believe China will be first but the US could beat them with an alliance with Russia, ESA and Japan as with the ISS.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Radiation levels won't be that different from the ISS where astronauts already spend prolonged periods there.




This can't be true as the ISS orbit of the Earth is mostly within the Earths magnetic field.

[Malbec]

This can't be true as the ISS orbit of the Earth is mostly within the Earths magnetic field.

The Earth's magnetic field does little to reduce the level of radiation. I think you're mistaking it for the Earth's atmosphere which is by far the biggest shield limiting our exposure to radiation from space.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Sigh..


It’ll never happen. Seriously.

This is a very short-sighted view.

Who would have thought that just over 60 years after the first ever powered flight that man would walk on the moon? (the flight to the moon was 10 million times further than the first powered flight)

[Rollo]

Who would have thought that just over 60 years after the first ever powered flight that man would walk on the moon? (the flight to the moon was 10 million times further than the first powered flight)

Who? Jules Verne (1865) and HG Wells (1901). :D

Verne's story "From the Earth to the Moon" is surprisingly accurate. He suggested that people be sent there in what basically amounts to a giant cannon shell and to be perfect frank, strapping three blokes in a capsule to the top of a Saturn V isn't different in principle.
I have a book somewhere by James Irwin written in about 1979 about a future mission to Mars planned in time for the 50th Anniversary of the moon landing in 2019.

I think technically we already had the capability of going to Mars as far back as 1985 but by then I think that the impetus and appetite to go to space was on the wane.
George HW Bush proclaimed in his 1992 State of the Union address that "communism died last year" and I think that that in itself was part of the reason for going to the moon in the first place. Kennedy committed the US to going to the moon I think partly to engage Khrushchev and the USSR in a spending war which diverted funds away from pointing nuclear weapons at each other; I don't know how close the world got to nuclear war in 1962.
Basically, there's no big fat enemy scaring the world anymore and the heat and therefore the vision of going into space has gone a bit cold I think.

[Mark]

It'll never happen omits a timeframe, will it happen in my lifetime? I don't know. Will it happen in the next 1,000 years, unless some calamity befalls humankind, then almost certainly.

[SGWilko]

I think a consortium headed by Ryanair will be the first to go to mars. They'll probably land on the moon and take the rest of the journey on a bus mind you......

[Rollo]

Radiation levels will be high and the astronauts will likely have an increased lifetime risk of cancer but they will survive the journey. Radiation levels won't be that different from the ISS where astronauts already spend prolonged periods there.


It seems that the biggest problem would be solar flares which are unpredictable.

The further out out get from the sun, it stands to reason that the radiation levels would be less. Radiation levels follow an Inverse Square Law with respect to an object (in this case the sun).

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses
received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 to 15 were small because no major
solar -particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected
by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose
to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar -particle releases are random
events, and it is possible that a flare, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles,
may hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere.

Radiation doses to Apollo crewmen have been significantly lower than
the yearly average of 5 rem set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for workers
who use radioactive materials in factories and institutions across the United States.

[chuck34]

Sigh..

You can sigh at me all you want. But the facts are just not on your side. You took a nice stab at a few things here, but you obviously don't know the details.


For starters:

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

There is absolutely no need for ion drives. In fact, because of their low impulse, and the relatively short trip to Mars, they might not be ideally suited anyway. And NO ONE anywhere would ever suggest using ion drives to get to orbit. They are only good once on orbit.

Also, there are some really cool tricks that you can do with orbital mechanics. Mars via Venus anyone? Yeah sounds strange, but doing a fly-by of Venus might actually shorten the trip to Mars.


Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Traveling through space for most of the trip would not increase radiation doses significantly. The problem is solar storms. They are the big risk, but you really can't predict them. However, we can detect them. That is why most of the talk/designs/plans for Mars Transfer Vehicles have in them a "storm shelter". This is a small place where the astronauts can take refuge once a storm is detected heading for them. It would be shielded by water/fuel/equipment/lead/stuff. Radiation is not a show stopper, just something to be aware of.


Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

There have been very extensive studies done on the ISS about this issue. They have come a long way from the days of Gemini VII where Borman and Lovell spent two weeks in orbit, and could barely stand when they got back on the carrier. Now crews spend close to a year on the ISS without much bone or muscle loss at all. Artificial gravity would be nice, but it is completely unnecessary, and would only add complexity, risk, and mass.


Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

Water recycling is becoming the norm, which greatly reduces the amount of water you need to take. You are right, you do have to lift massive amounts of supplies. But you are wrong that it would require impractically huge rockets. NO ONE is suggesting that you launch a single rocket to Mars the way we did Apollo. That is just stupid (and in my opinion it was stupid to do for Apollo too). You launch a bunch of medium to heavy class rockets and assemble everything in LEO before you fire up the engines for Mars.


In a nutshell...
Consider that mankind currently struggles to get to low earth orbit, let alone the moon.
Consider that the distance to the moon is approximately 400,000kms. Minimum distance to Mars? Approx. 56,000,000kms. That’s about 14,000% further.

Struggles?? The U.S. has been doing it for decades. Same with the Soviets/Russians. Right now the US Congress and NASA have shot themselves in the foot politically and allowed a "manned flight gap". But we are still launching satellites and probes. Now the Chinese are launching satellites at an astounding rate the last few months. And they've put up astronauts as well. The EU has a fairly good program. Heck, even India, and Iran have achieved orbit. And now we have private companies doing it with Space-X already launching satellites, and soon they will be joined by others.

Why would the distance matter? The farthest man had ever been before Apollo 8 was Gemini 11 at 1,369km. That means the moon is 29,200% further than Gemini 11. So overcoming great distances isn't really any issue on it's own.

All it takes is a will and funding. Neither of which anyone has at the moment. But that can change at any time.


It’ll never happen. Seriously.

Seriously?? Show me one technical argument why it will never happen, 'cause the stuff you just threw up is completely bogus. And NEVER is a really long time. You sure about that? If you would say "in our lifetime" maybe I'd give you some credit ... but now you're in that crowd that said "you'll never get to China that way, don't you know the earth is flat", "you'll never fly faster than the speed of sound, don't you know there's a barrier there", or "you'll never get to the moon, don't you know it's really far away"

[schmenke]

The Earth's magnetic field does little to reduce the level of radiation. I think you're mistaking it for the Earth's atmosphere which is by far the biggest shield limiting our exposure to radiation from space.

The ISS, and indeed the moon, are well within Earth’s Van Allen electromagnetic belts that protect against much of the cosmic radiation. Mars has no active magma core in the centre of the planet which produces magnetic fields similar to Earth.

[schmenke]

...Who would have thought that just over 60 years after the first ever powered flight that man would walk on the moon? (the flight to the moon was 10 million times further than the first powered flight)

Very true, but many of the advances during the last ~60 years have exploited the laws of physics to the extreme, and there is a limit. The same laws that were overcome to reach the moon are must be overcome to reach Mars. Both the shear increase in distance and the escape from Earth’s gravitational pull are the hurdles.

[schmenke]

In the time it takes to develop the solutions to the problems of a manned mission to Mars mankind will be faced with ecological and humanitarian crises on Earth that will consume all our efforts, funding and resources to overcome. The development of a Mars mission will be very much a low, if non-existent, priority.

Mankind will destroy itself long before it sets foot on another planet.

It’ll never happen. Seriously.

[chuck34]

The ISS, and indeed the moon, are well within Earth’s Van Allen electromagnetic belts that protect against much of the cosmic radiation. Mars has no active magma core in the centre of the planet which produces magnetic fields similar to Earth.

Absolutely false. The moon is outside the Van Allen Belts. Many people in the 60's were saying that we could never go to the moon because they would have to go through and outside of the Van Allen Belts. Had you been around at the time, I'm sure you would have been one of those people.

perhaps some reading is in order
Can People Go to Mars? - NASA Science (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/17feb_radiation/)

"We're not sure," says Cucinotta. According to a 2001 study of people exposed to large doses of radiation--e.g., Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors and, ironically, cancer patients who have undergone radiation therapy--the added risk of a 1000-day Mars mission lies somewhere between 1% and 19%. "The most likely answer is 3.4%," says Cucinotta, "but the error bars are wide."

Researchers who did the study assumed the Mars-ship would be built "mostly of aluminum, like an old Apollo command module," says Cucinotta. The spaceship's skin would absorb about half the radiation hitting it.

[chuck34]

Both the shear increase in distance and the escape from Earth’s gravitational pull are the hurdles.

Sure they are challenges, but please explain how they are insurmountable challenges.

[chuck34]

In the time it takes to develop the solutions to the problems of a manned mission to Mars mankind will be faced with ecological and humanitarian crises on Earth that will consume all our efforts, funding and resources to overcome. The development of a Mars mission will be very much a low, if non-existent, priority.

Mankind will destroy itself long before it sets foot on another planet.

It’ll never happen. Seriously.

What solutions need to be developed? How much time will it take to develop them?

What humanitarian and ecological crises are you speaking of? How exactly will they effect space travel?

Who's priority list are you speaking of when you say a Mars mission will be very low? I know that it is pretty high on Elon Musk's priority list.

How will mankind destroy itself, and how many years away is that? The answer to this question must be less than the number of years to develop all this "magical" technology you seem to believe must be developed.

[Malbec]

The ISS, and indeed the moon, are well within Earth’s Van Allen electromagnetic belts that protect against much of the cosmic radiation. Mars has no active magma core in the centre of the planet which produces magnetic fields similar to Earth.

the moon lies outside the van Allen belt. Radiation levels outside this are higher but easily survivable, none of the Apollo astronauts suffered adverse effects.

Mars has an atmosphere. This is far more protective than a magnetic field for radiation once they land.

[schmenke]

the moon lies outside the van Allen belt. ....

I didn’t realise that. Thanks for the correction.

Yes, Mars has a thin atmosphere, but as far as I understand it’s only about 1% as dense as Earth’s offering minimal protection from radiation. Keep in mind also that astronauts will endure a stay of up to a year on Mars before returning to Earth, lengthening their exposure.
Some kind of shielding will obviously be required.

[Dave B]

Very true, but many of the advances during the last ~60 years have exploited the laws of physics to the extreme, and there is a limit. The same laws that were overcome to reach the moon are must be overcome to reach Mars. Both the shear increase in distance and the escape from Earth’s gravitational pull are the hurdles.

Gravity is unlikely to be a barrier as it's highly improbable that any mission would be launched directly from Earth. It's far more likely that the craft would be assembled in low-earth orbit or even on the moon, bit by bit like the ISS, before heading off into the Solar System.

It'll never happen? Not so sure. It's a huge challenge, both technically and economically, but if there's a will I'm confident mankind will eventually set foot on another planet.

[schmenke]

Gravity is the very barrier.

Everything required for a Mars mission will ultimately have to be lifted off of Earth, regardless of where components are assembled, using rocket propulsion. Assembly in low Earth orbit or even the moon will still require escape from the pull of our planet’s gravity.

To put things in perspective... A Martian payload would weigh several thousand tons, likely requiring launches from several rocket vehicles.
The largest single payload ever lifted off Earth was, I believe approximately 50 metric tons, using the Saturn V rocket. That was to the moon. A typical NASA space shuttle payload was about half that mass, just to achieve low Earth orbit.

[donKey jote]

I wonder where you could assemble the return payload, assuming you were on a return ticket :p

[Sonic]

In space top speed is unlimited except by how much fuel you can carry. The advantage with ion drive is it's extremely fuel efficient.

This is what I meant. As I understand it an Ion drive can do an extended burn whereas conventional propulsion uses short sharp bursts.

Ps - have you solved that pesky problem of the speed of light? top speed is unlimited

[Brown, Jon Brow]

the moon lies outside the van Allen belt. Radiation levels outside this are higher but easily survivable, none of the Apollo astronauts suffered adverse effects.

Mars has an atmosphere. This is far more protective than a magnetic field for radiation once they land.

Now, correct be again if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was the ozone layer in the Earth's atmosphere (which is protected by the magnetic field) that protects us from the UV rays from the Sun?

Mars doesn't have an ozone layer in its atmosphere.

[donKey jote]

UV rays aren't the problem... all you'd need is a thicker layer of sunscreen :p

"cosmic radiation" is mainly protons

[tfp]

Sigh..

For starters:

Propulsion systems. Yes, ion propulsion systems have been successfully tested, but the severe limitation with them is the huge amount of electricity needed to energize the ion gas, requiring some kind of on-board generator: Another addition to the payload (it's all about the payload...). As Mark says only a small amount of ion thrust is required to get a spacecraft moving once in space. However, an enormous amount of thrust is required to lift a spacecraft(s) from Earth and escape its gravitational pull. Something for which an ion-propulsion engine is woefully inadequate.

Radiation:
Space travellers will be bombarded for months with lethal doses of cosmic radiation. Currently no feasible technology exists to mitigate this. Lining the interior cabin with lead would do it, but the weight penalty would be enormous (it's all about the payload).

Medical issues:
Lack of gravity will result in a loss of bone mass in space travellers, as well as a degradation of heart muscle tissue. Yes, artificial gravity can be provided by spinning cabins, etc., but there are practical and physical limitations to these schemes.

Food, water oxygen supplies:
All food and water supplies would be have to be brought along from Earth. No in-flight replenishment is possible. Just to lift the required mass of water from Earth would require rockets impractically huge.

In a nutshell...
Consider that mankind currently struggles to get to low earth orbit, let alone the moon.
Consider that the distance to the moon is approximately 400,000kms. Minimum distance to Mars? Approx. 56,000,000kms. That’s about 14,000% further.

It’ll never happen. Seriously.

All very good points, but dont forget, a huge amount of fuel is used simply exiting the atmosphere, if they could have enough fuel just to rendezvouz with the ISS, then refuel there, fuel up with oxygen etc. IMO if it was going to happen, this is the way they would do it.

[tfp]

Trust me, you don't want to know how close. I lived just outside of Washington at the time. There was a girl in my school class whose parents both had high level jobs, on different shifts, at the Pentagon. She was out of school for three days because she and her brother needed to be at home so that the helicopters could pick the family up and take them to West Virginia on 15 minutes notice

Bloody hell, thats frightening stuff.

[Zico]

All very good points, but dont forget, a huge amount of fuel is used simply exiting the atmosphere, if they could have enough fuel just to rendezvouz with the ISS, then refuel there, fuel up with oxygen etc. IMO if it was going to happen, this is the way they would do it.


Or simply take all the necesary mission and rocket components out to the ISS in smaller quantities and launch from there?

[Malbec]

Now, correct be again if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was the ozone layer in the Earth's atmosphere (which is protected by the magnetic field) that protects us from the UV rays from the Sun?

Mars doesn't have an ozone layer in its atmosphere.

Errr UV rays are not the type of radiation we're concerned about here.

All you need to stop the UV rays is anything that casts a shadow. A spacesuit or any kind of spacecraft will more than suffice. The fact that even translucent sunblock or sunglasses can cut UV radiation significantly is a clue.

Cosmic radiation primarily consists of various subatomic particles travelling freely through space. They are primarily protons, alpha and beta radiation and are therefore far more penetrative. These are also more dangerous in terms of mutagenic ability. It is this kind of radiation that is of concern in space travel.

The level of this radiation is reduced with an atmosphere. Sure, Mars has an atmosphere significantly less dense than on Earth but it is still sufficient to cut out most of it.

[schmenke]

Or simply take all the necesary mission and rocket components out to the ISS in smaller quantities and launch from there?

It would take years, perhaps decades, of multiple launches to get sufficient fuel, water, etc. stored at the ISS. Besides, the ISS was never designed as a storage facility, especially for quantities such as required for a Mars mission. Is is merely a habitation vehcile for long-term zero-gravity experiments.

[Sonic]

It would take years, perhaps decades, of multiple launches to get sufficient fuel, water, etc. stored at the ISS. Besides, the ISS was never designed as a storage facility, especially for quantities such as required for a Mars mission. Is is merely a habitation vehcile for long-term zero-gravity experiments.

Very true. Besides, the ISS's expected operation lifetime is (I believe) another ten to fifteen years tops. If mankind is to go to Mars in my lifetime it will need to utilise purpose built equipment rather than commandeering current vehicles.

[tfp]

It would take years, perhaps decades, of multiple launches to get sufficient fuel, water, etc. stored at the ISS. Besides, the ISS was never designed as a storage facility, especially for quantities such as required for a Mars mission. Is is merely a habitation vehcile for long-term zero-gravity experiments.

This sounds like the biggest challenge of all, the transportation of everything you'll need to survive for the amount of time you'll be away.
Either that, or they may do what they did on the apollo 13 mission, when they realised they would run out of oxygen before they reached earth....Make it go faster...

[Brown, Jon Brow]

This sounds like the biggest challenge of all, the transportation of everything you'll need to survive for the amount of time you'll be away.
Either that, or they may do what they did on the apollo 13 mission, when they realised they would run out of oxygen before they reached earth....Make it go faster...

Why couldn't we send certain things like extra oxygen, water, fuel to Mars orbit a few weeks in advance of the human spacecraft arriving? The same way in which we re-fuel military aircraft mid-flight on long missions.

[Mark]

Some of the suggestions involve mining the necessary fuel from Mars itself before the return trip.

If you can find water on Mars then there's your oxygen problem sorted but even then they've shown that need not be an issue with plants along for the trip.

[Zico]

Why couldn't we send certain things like extra oxygen, water, fuel to Mars orbit a few weeks in advance of the human spacecraft arriving? The same way in which we re-fuel military aircraft mid-flight on long missions.

Maybe because it would increase the chances of something going wrong, ie, if something happened to the payload on route beyond the half-way point, the (two weeks behind) manned mission would end up with a one way ticket.

[Zico]

All of the plans I've seen do involve sending supplies ahead and either parking them in Mars orbit (most likely) or dropping them to a pre selected landing spot. This could be done any time before, during or after the manned launch, though it makes more sense to have it waiting in orbit before launch in case of any glitches. Re supplying in orbit also saves having to burn fuel landing the supplies and lifting off from Mars for the return flight.

All of this is doable with today's technology (and many, many billions of the currency of your choice), though would be extremely risky without much more advancement. It also requires the necessary infrastructure - a base and staging area in LEO and/or one of the Lagrange points.

Agreed, I should perhaps have made it clearer but It was the two weeks comment I was referring to.

[Rollo]

Some of the suggestions involve mining the necessary fuel from Mars itself before the return trip.

If you can find water on Mars then there's your oxygen problem sorted but even then they've shown that need not be an issue with plants along for the trip.

That would be the ultimate example of Priestley's bell-jar experiment with the candle, the mouse and the plant wouldn't it? I would hope that keeping plants on a spaceship would be obvious.

Actually, I would hope that plants on the spaceship we call "Earth" would also be obvious but it seems to me that governments around the world collectively want to ignore this fact. If "carbon" was such a problem, then why hasn't anyone ever suggested spending billions of dollars on planting trees around the world?

[schmenke]

All of the plans I've seen do involve sending supplies ahead and either parking them in Mars orbit (most likely) or dropping them to a pre selected landing spot. This could be done any time before, during or after the manned launch, though it makes more sense to have it waiting in orbit before launch in case of any glitches. Re supplying in orbit also saves having to burn fuel landing the supplies and lifting off from Mars for the return flight.
....

That is the likely scenario, however, the duration just to get to Mars is several months, necessitating carrying all resources on board.
Anything required for the duration spent on the surface could be launched ahead of the manned vehicle, and be ready for the crew upon arrival.
Either way, everything is still required to be launched from Earth, unless, as Mark suggests, automated mining equipment could be sent in advance that could produce and store sufficient quantities of oxygen and water. The technology required to do this is a very long way off though.

In case anyone is interested, there are some very good books available that highlight both the challenges and proposed solutions for a manned mission to Mars. A suggested read is a novel that’s been around for a few years now called Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson. He also wrote a couple of sequels called Green Mars and Blue Mars that describe the terra forming of the planet, but I didn’t find these books as interesting.

[Mark]

Yes, new technology is required. However the likes of the mining machines for example are well within our capability to be invented, if we needed them.

[schmenke]

The biggest challenge with automated mining machines is the power requirements. A huge amount of energy is required to harvest ice to produce both oxygen and water. Solar panels alone simply wouldn’t provide sufficient power.
In the book I mentioned above, Red Mars, a self-contained mini nuclear power plant is first launched to provide power.
Again, I don’t believe we have the technology to do accomplish this, let alone the fact that I’m not convinced we want to risk launching rockets with radioactive material on board :mark:

[chuck34]

The ISS is not a good place to assemble your Mars vehicle at for a couple of reasons. First and most important is that it was never designed for such a thing. Second is that it is in the wrong orbital inclination. It was put at a very high inclination to facilitate the Russians. The US actually takes a mass penalty to lauch there. If on orbit assembly is required, and I think it is, you would do it at a much lower inclination so that supplies from the US could be maximized. There is also a hit you would take by launching to Mars from the high ISS inclination. Or better yet you wouldn't do your assemble in LEO at all. You would do it at a Lagrange point.

Automated mining is a while off yet, and not really necessary for the first few missions. I would imagine we start by trialing automated mining on the moon before going all the way to Mars.

There are no technial reasons why we couldn't go to Mars tomorrow. All we need is someone to have the will to spend the cubic dollars it will take, and to not be so risk adverse. I don't see the US (as a nation) having that will in the near future. However, I do see the Chinese having that will. And I also see Space-X having the will. Will they have the dollars though, that's the question?

[Mark]

I'm not convinced we want to risk launching rockets with radioactive material on board :mark:

We already do on a regular basis. Nuclear powered satellites and probes are quite common.

[Zico]

"The American space agency looks set to pull the plug on its joint missions to Mars with the European Space Agency.

Nasa has told Esa it is now highly unlikely it will be able to contribute to the endeavours, which envision an orbiting satellite and a big roving robot being sent to the Red Planet.

The US has yet to make a formal statement on the matter but budget woes are thought to lie behind its decision.

Europe is now banking on a Russian partnership to keep the missions alive."..... (cont)


BBC News - ExoMars cooperation between Nasa and Esa near collapse (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16906740)


It's beginning to look more and more doubtful...

[odykas]

The Klingons :p :

[kevin19]

I think it would have to be a collaboration, no government right now can justify spending so much on space travel during an economic crisis. As this blog suggests, the US seems to have 'abandoned space' (http://bespokeblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/has-america-abandoned-space/) althogther. I think Russia are perhaps the only governmet with enough money and with the political drive to do a Mars Mission, but they would need back up, a new way for China to spend its money perhaps?!