DailyDirt: Making A Trip To Mars
from the urls-we-dig-up dept
It's been decades since a human being has traveled beyond low earth orbit. Last year, NASA tested its human-rated Space Launch System to an altitude of 3,600 miles, but getting people to a "human accessible surface" that isn't part of the earth is going to take some time. China could have a taikonaut on the moon before 2030. NASA can say it's "been there, done that" -- but when will it be able to top a manned lunar landing?- NASA is working on its (potentially Mars-bound) spacecraft, Orion -- to get astronauts deeper into space. At the same time, NASA is also developing its Space Launch System (SLS) that will get Orion beyond low earth orbit, and if everything goes as planned the first manned crews will be taking off in 2023. [url]
- It might make sense to create a moon base as a pit stop before launching manned missions to more distant locations like Mars. If we can mine the moon for resources, that could reduce the expense of sending everything from the earth. However, it'll take a bit longer to figure out how to process and manufacture anything on the moon, especially if it's going to be done autonomously somehow. [url]
- NASA's 2013 class of astronauts are being trained to possibly go to Mars. There are only 8 of these astronauts (and 4 of them are women), and presumably, their training on vomit comets will be pretty intense. [url]
- Making a trip to Mars in the near future is going to be expensive and probably controversial. Arguably, billions of dollars could be better spent to solve problems on Earth, and Mars is going to be around for quite some time. Still, it doesn't hurt to make some goals and try to scope out potential landing sites on the red planet, does it? [url]
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: astronauts, human accessible surface, leo, lunar base, manned missions, mars, moon, orion, sls, space, space exploration, space race, taikonauts, vomit comet
Companies: nasa
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Re: America and Mars
> At this stage I would suggest that China or India are more likely to get to Mars first before the US does;That's not at all likely.
India isn't funding its space program at anywhere near the level needed for a manned program, let alone for a manned lunar program.
China does have a manned program. They've been repeating the America's Gemini mission milestones over the last 15 years. And at a slower pace - instead of Gemini's flights every few weeks, they're flying once every few years.
Their next big project is their space station, a smaller version of Mir. Assembly will take several years starting around 2020. And then after that, they'll have to launch crews and cargo at a much higher rate than they launch now. No, there won't be any money for a manned lunar program at the same time. But unmanned lunar probes - including sample return - will continue.
China suffers from the same problem as Russia, and the US in the 1970s: Lot of plans announced, plans that get repeated in the press. But plans aren't the same as funded plans.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'll take my astronaut medium rare
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cape Canaveral on the moon
The Space Shuttle was a perfect example. It was touted as a way to save money on space flight because the craft were "reusable." But instead it proved to be expensive and unreliable, and far less capable of leaving low-earth orbit than the very successful Saturn rockets that took us to the moon. Ironically, US astronauts are now dependent on the Russians for rides to the ISS, even though the Russian-built rockets are only slightly improved versions of 1960s technology.
I can think of no better way to sabotage Mars exploration than to divert resources to building a moon colony for mining and manufacturing fuel and parts for the Mars journey.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
Unless we genetically modify the astronauts with cockroach genes...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
Houston ... we have a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon
Moonbat alpha is alive !!!
I heard the dust is horrible, they will need a rumba.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon
The Shuttle was built at least one X-vehicle too early. Instead it WAS an X-vehicle. As an experimental vehicle it was highly successful, testing many new technologies. The tiled heat shield, staged combustion engines and much more. Even after it was operational they went through multiple generations each of main engines, solid rocket boosters, external tanks (developing friction-stir welding along the way), avionics and more - improving designs along the way.
But an X-vehicle doesn't make for a good, cheap, reliable operational vehicle. It should have been replaced with a new design based on the lessons learned.
It wasn't capable of leaving low-earth orbit at all, nor was it ever intended to.
The idea was to build the Space Shuttle, use that to build a space station, and then use both to assemble missions going beyond LEO.
"Now?" The US has been dependent on Soyuz since the first crew arrived in November 2000 - and that was the plan years before that.
NASA requires astronauts to have a ride home at all times in case of an emergency. The Shuttle - which got its power from hydrogen fuel cells - could only stay in orbit for a couple weeks. Soyuz - with its solar panels and batteries - can stay in orbit for six months.
If it makes you feel better, the Russians are just as dependent on the US to get to ISS. Paid Soyuz flights for Americans and other ISS partners are likely the only thing keeping the Russian manned space program running.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon
If we can also generate resources from the moon, that's a big bonus.
I've never understood the concept of proofing technology somewhere that's 2 years away from rescue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
The usual design is for a "storm shelter" in the center of the spacecraft. Essentially the food closet. Turns out the moisture in the food means that it makes for good shielding, and they'll be launching a whole lot of it anyway. The spacecraft's water supply would also line the shelter. Beyond that would be the closet walls, the outer spacecraft wall, and all the equipment in between.
The "storm shelter" would only be needed for a few hours at a time, so astronauts could still get exercise in the rest of the spacecraft.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
Houston ... we have a problem."
How in the hell do we dock with the deep space roach coach?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon
[ link to this | view in thread ]
America and Mars
Certainly the current president shows no interest. If anything he keeps wanting to cut NASA's missions and budget. He abolished Constellation, and would have abolished the SLS and Orion as well if Congress hadn't stepped in and overruled him. He did promise a mission to an asteroid, along with a vague promise about using it as a stepping stone for getting to Mars, but that has now morphed into a mission to lunar orbit to examine an asteroid brought there by an unmanned craft, a mission which won't fly until the 2020s, Congress does not seem to favour it, and the next president may well send it to the same graveyard of defunct space programs Constellation wound up in.
To be fair, nor do I see much interest in the current crop of presidential candidates. Trump was specifically asked about Mars exploration at one speech in New Hampshire back in 2015 and gave a response which implied disinterest.
I haven't seen much from any candidate since, suggesting that, like Obama, missions to Mars won't be a priority during their 4 or 8 years in office. If so, that could bring us to 2024 without any plan for manned Mars missions, which is leaving things rather late for NASA to land anybody there by or during the 2030s.
At this stage I would suggest that China or India are more likely to get to Mars first before the US does; and since the US does not really like being second that may mean there will NEVER be any NASA Mars missions.
There is also this: even if NASA does do manned missions to Mars, just how many such missions will there be? Will there be a whole flock of them or just one or maybe two, after which Congress will start balking at the cost and Americans in general start yawning and making complaints about missing their re-runs of the Kardashians?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll take my astronaut medium rare
"Within one hour of the impact, a cold, dense plasma sheet had formed out of the filament material and high density material continued to move through the magnetosphere for the entire six hours of the filament's passage."
http://sci.esa.int/cluster/54573-a-mixed-up-magnetic-storm/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: America and Mars
The added complexity and associated expense of human rated spacecraft are significant and therefore require a correspondingly significant return. What exactly would this be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: America and Mars
That's not at all likely.
India isn't funding its space program at anywhere near the level needed for a manned program, let alone for a manned lunar program.
China does have a manned program. They've been repeating the America's Gemini mission milestones over the last 15 years. And at a slower pace - instead of Gemini's flights every few weeks, they're flying once every few years.
Their next big project is their space station, a smaller version of Mir. Assembly will take several years starting around 2020. And then after that, they'll have to launch crews and cargo at a much higher rate than they launch now. No, there won't be any money for a manned lunar program at the same time. But unmanned lunar probes - including sample return - will continue.
China suffers from the same problem as Russia, and the US in the 1970s: Lot of plans announced, plans that get repeated in the press. But plans aren't the same as funded plans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Cape Canaveral on the moon
So when the Shuttle, instead of turn around times of weeks, became months and years at significant repeated expense, it doesn't meet the goals it was supposed to fulfill.
It did amazing things but it was supposed to do that AND be cheap and reusable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: America and Mars
One line of speculation suggested a Chinese manned Mars mission sometime in the 2040-60 period. Whether that actually happens is something we can have a debate about, but let's not confuse rumours and speculations with ACTUAL plans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why send a human to Mars? What can be accomplished that a robot cannot do?
The only real reason robots are being sent to Mars is the cost. It is far cheaper to send a robot (and an expendable robot at that, who does not have to be brought back to Earth once the mission is over) than an unexpendable human.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: America and Mars
China to send man to moon by 2025
or
Russia and China Aim for the Moon and a Joint Lunar Base
Those were found just in the first quick Google search. There have been many such stories over the years.
It's officials announcing "this is what we plan to", instead of "this is what we WILL do" or "this is what we're funded to do." But it's still Chinese officials announcing plans, regardless of whether bad reporting turns it into "this is what China IS doing."
And it's been very common over the decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]